# Why is it so important?



## Treebore

I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.

I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.

So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?

I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?


----------



## Merlion

I think your misinterpreting. 


Chances are, at least some of the per day/encounter abilities will also have to be chosen beforehand anyway...either on their own, or I have a feeling that some of them may in fact be tied to your selection of prepared spells.


  Nextly...basically, while many are fine with it, many people have had a problem with the "Vancian" magic system for some time, either mechanically, conceptually or both. One of the big ones being that for Wizards, magic is all the have, and in the current system they can run out of "prepared spells" and become very nearly useless in terms of combat etc. Concetptually, its not a very good fit when compared to the workings of magic in most fantasy and mythology. No one is interested in doing away with the challenges of forethought that you speak of, but it is possible to remove some of the limitations of the Vancian system, without removing that element of challenge.


----------



## Badkarmaboy

I'd say it's due to the lag time after encounters.  Who wants to wait a day between each big encounter?  It leads spell casters to "over husband" spells too.  I know I do it sometimes with my cleric.  

I think having a system that allows for a few big per day abilities and some mild to moderately useful per encounter abilities would be good.  Keeps the flow of the game up better.

Just my two cents.


----------



## whydirt

While I agree somewhat with what you're saying, I think any benefit from the level of strategy provided by managing "per day" resources is outweighed by the hindrance of dealing with the 9:00 -> 9:05 adventuring hours problem.


----------



## Jared Rascher

I don't know.  I can understand having a "little" more flexibility, but I'm concerned that this per encounter/at will/per day structure is "idiot proofing" PCs to the point to where what decision they may isn't that big a deal.  Should you use mage blast or one of your spells?  Eh, in the end, if you make the wrong choice, you have more choices, and you won't really be "wrong," you just may have to fight something for 8 rounds instead of three.


----------



## Andre

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.




While I can't speak for anyone else, an incident at a game session right after my group started using "per encounter" magic vs. vancian may sum it up nicely:

The party had just finished their third encounter in the caves, a real tough one in which a couple characters almost dropped and a lot of spells were cast. One of the players looks around and states, "Well, I guess we better pull out and rest." The other player and I look at her and ask simultaneously "Why?"

She was so used to having to stop in the middle of adventures and rest to recover spells that it was a habit. A bad habit. One we've broken nicely.

That said, from what little we know, 4E _may_ have found a nice middle ground, mixing "per encounter" and "per day" abilities to keep some of the resource management aspects (which I like) and still get rid of the infamous "fight a couple encounters and rest" syndrome (which I hate).

YMMV


----------



## Victim

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.
> 
> I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.
> 
> So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?
> 
> I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?




Your first 2 challenges don't change with per encounter abilities.  

Long run attrition challenges aren't interesting to me since the early encounters are easy.  What's at issue isn't whether or not the characters win, it's how much they have to pay to do it.  I'd rather have 2 big monster battles that use up lots of resources even if the group has to rest than 6 fights in a row that only present a threat in conjunction since the party is running low on resources.

Also, if the group can easily withdraw or otherwise recharge as needed, then resources might as well be per encounter anyway.


----------



## Gimby

It allows for easier balancing of encounters and pacing of adventures.

With per-encounter balancing you have a good idea ahead of time what the capabilities of a party will be at any point in the future.  You can have the numbers of encounters per day dictated by the requirements of the game's plot rather than by the 4-per-day balance assumption and not worry that this will leave some players feeling useless.  You are not forced to apply a time pressure to prevent the players from simply nova-ing one encounter and then resting back to full.

As it stands, some classes are already per-encounter based (fighter, rouge, warlock and so on) and other are not (any primary caster really).  This makes it more difficult to balance between classes- the durability that is supposedly the strength of the per-encounter classes is rarely seen as the per-day classes will want to rest as soon as they have spent their resources.  By putting everyone on the same playing field you can ensure that the classes are balanced against each other.


----------



## Merlion

KnightErrantJR said:
			
		

> I don't know.  I can understand having a "little" more flexibility, but I'm concerned that this per encounter/at will/per day structure is "idiot proofing" PCs to the point to where what decision they may isn't that big a deal.  Should you use mage blast or one of your spells?  Eh, in the end, if you make the wrong choice, you have more choices, and you won't really be "wrong," you just may have to fight something for 8 rounds instead of three.





  Thats different from now in what way?

The PCs generally win no matter what. They generally overcome whatever challenges presented and/or reach their goals regardless. Thats how the game is built. Yea, characters do even die now and then...but they can be ressurected. 

  And I think flexibility is part of it, but I think especially when it comes to the Wizard and other primary casting classes BadKarmaboy is right. A lot of it is a time thing. Lets say you encounter a magically sealed door. The Wizard knows the spell to bypass it, so its going to get bypassed. But under the current system, if he doesnt already happen to have it prepared, you have to wait a day. So, its going to get bypassed, its just a matter of when....so why make everyone stop because the wizard has to rest 8 hours and prepare spells?

  Likewise with combat encounters. As it is, the Wizards and other spellcasters often run out of spells while many of the other class types are still pretty good to go, which doesnt really seem very fair, to anyone.


----------



## Glyfair

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.



I'm in favor of "per encounter" abilities because of the reduction in bookkeeping.

What are they replacing?  Most of them would be abilities that last about a single combat, or last a single round and "recharge" in about that time.  When they overrun that combat it often becomes an exercise in tedium trying to figure out exactly how much time is taking place outside of combat. 

How long were you talking to the NPC?  How long did it take to search the bodies?  How long did walking down the hallway carefully take?

In my opinion, keeping track of these things is boring.  Trying to "wing it" on the fly, on the other hand, tends to lead to a very inconsistent game where things vary based on the mood of the DM at the time).

How about things that are "per encounter" that would previously had limited uses per day?  Those things that are changed to that format would have had so many that you almost never ran out of them.  Moving to "per encounter" reduces the number of things you have to  track.  

Sure, there are certain things you need to track.  Every additional thing you deal with in this fashion reduces the focus on the game, in my experience.  You don't really have to keep track of "once per encounter" abilities, most players/DMs will remember when they were used during the encounter.  Spread it out over a day with multiple uses and that always isn't practical.


----------



## Treebore

whydirt said:
			
		

> While I agree somewhat with what you're saying, I think any benefit from the level of strategy provided by managing "per day" resources is outweighed by the hindrance of dealing with the 9:00 -> 9:05 adventuring hours problem.





What hindrance does it cause you? I understand the hindrance that the character goes through, but the players just hear "OK you rest for 8 hours then the spellcasters spend an hour praying/meditating/memorizing. Now how do you re enter the lair? Same as before?"

Plus, at higher levels, if everyone is getting th magic they "should" be getting, what are you doing with your wands, staves, rods, scrolls, etc...? I actually spent a lot of time, and money (no XP's, we all agreed spending XP's on scrolls was stupid, same with potions), so I rarely ever ran out of spells due to my scrolls.

So I wonder if people have these problems either because they don't use their abilities to offset these shortages, such as making a lot of scrolls, or another probablility, the DM's aren't giving the players the right depth of resources. IE not enough magic items, not enough money or time to make scrolls or potions, etc...

So I am curious if that is the "real" reason people even have these problems, or if it really is a problem with the mechanics of the system that are guilty.


----------



## Treebore

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I'm in favor of "per encounter" abilities because of the reduction in bookkeeping.
> 
> What are they replacing?  Most of them would be abilities that last about a single combat, or last a single round and "recharge" in about that time.  When they overrun that combat it often becomes an exercise in tedium trying to figure out exactly how much time is taking place outside of combat.
> 
> How long were you talking to the NPC?  How long did it take to search the bodies?  How long did walking down the hallway carefully take?
> 
> In my opinion, keeping track of these things is boring.  Trying to "wing it" on the fly, on the other hand, tends to lead to a very inconsistent game where things vary based on the mood of the DM at the time).
> 
> How about things that are "per encounter" that would previously had limited uses per day?  Those things that are changed to that format would have had so many that you almost never ran out of them.  Moving to "per encounter" reduces the number of things you have to  track.
> 
> Sure, there are certain things you need to track.  Every additional thing you deal with in this fashion reduces the focus on the game, in my experience.  You don't really have to keep track of "once per encounter" abilities, most players/DMs will remember when they were used during the encounter.  Spread it out over a day with multiple uses and that always isn't practical.




How does that get rid of the need to track? You still mark it off as used. Then have to restore it after the combat. How long did you talk to the NPC? As long as you talked to the DM as the NPC, or two minutes if it was glossed over. How long did you take to search the bodies? One minute per body, divided by the number of PC's searching.

How long did it take to search the hallway, with or without taking 20? Thats covered in the rules.

So how is changing things to "per encounter" really going to change anything? I don't see how with these examples.


----------



## Victim

Treebore said:
			
		

> What hindrance does it cause you? I understand the hindrance that the character goes through, but the players just hear "OK you rest for 8 hours then the spellcasters spend an hour praying/meditating/memorizing. Now how do you re enter the lair? Same as before?"
> 
> So I wonder if people have these problems either because they don't use their abilities to offset these shortages, such as making a lot of scrolls, or another probablility, the DM's aren't giving the players the right depth of resources. IE not enough magic items, not enough money or time to make scrolls or potions, etc...
> 
> So I am curious if that is the "real" reason people even have these problems, or if it really is a problem with the mechanics of the system that are guilty.




If people can trivially avoid running out of abilities, then why bother including so many limited powers?  You might as well make them per encounter if people rest frequently or use charged items (remember that dependence on magic items is supposed to be reduced) to avoid running out.


----------



## Glyfair

Treebore said:
			
		

> What hindrance does it cause you? I understand the hindrance that the character goes through, but the players just hear "OK you rest for 8 hours then the spellcasters spend an hour praying/meditating/memorizing. Now how do you re enter the lair? Same as before?"



It breaks the "suspension of disbelief" when you go in the dungeon, leave, rest for 8 hours, go back in, come back out, rest.

Now, I personally believe that when the PCs do that they should have to deal with repercussions (enemies following them and ambushing them while resting).  However, I've heard many comments where DMs have done that and it's ended up in a TPK.  

Sure, over time you can train that out of your players.  However, that's not why we are sitting at the table.  The habit is almost entirely due to the system.  Why not just change the system so it doesn't encourage that behavior.



> Plus, at higher levels, if everyone is getting th magic they "should" be getting, what are you doing with your wands, staves, rods, scrolls, etc...? I actually spent a lot of time, and money (no XP's, we all agreed spending XP's on scrolls was stupid, same with potions), so I rarely ever ran out of spells due to my scrolls.




A lot of people, DMs and players, feel that this reliance on magic items is the big weak point in D&D.  They want the game to focus on the characters more, and less on how much stuff they have to cover the weak points in their character (such as limited uses per day).

Fortunately for this group, WotC is definitely aiming to fix this.  Reliance on charged items is one of the things they have specifically stated they want to change with 4E.


----------



## Doug McCrae

James Wyatt explains the issue thusly:



			
				James Wyatt's blog said:
			
		

> See, in 3e there's a basic assumption that an encounter between four 5th-level PCs and one CR 5 monster should drain away about 25% of the party's resources, which primarily translates into spells (and primarily the cleric's spells, which determine everyone else's total hit points). What that actually means is that you get up the morning, then have three encounters in a row that don't reallly challenge you. It's the fourth one that tests your skill—that's where you figure out whether you've spent too much, or if you still have enough resources left to finish off that last encounter. Then you're done. So basically, three boring encounters before you get to one that's really life or death.
> 
> It kind of makes sense, mathematically. The problem is, it's not fun. So what lots of people actually do, in my experience, is get up in the morning and have a fun encounter: there are multiple monsters that are close to the PCs' level, so the total encounter level is higher than their level. There's interesting terrain and dynamic movement. Sometimes there are waves of monsters, one after another. Whew! It's a knock-down, drag-out fight that could really go either way. And it's fun!


----------



## Glyfair

Treebore said:
			
		

> How does that get rid of the need to track? You still mark it off as used. [/Quopte]
> 
> As I stated, it's not needed.  I can remember what I used during a combat (and what my players did).  I can't remember how many times an ability was used over a day with multiple encounters without tracking them.
> 
> As for time...where is that sheet?  No, that's my spell sheet, that's not it.  No, that's the note the DM gave me with the next clue.  Oh wait, it slid under the battlemat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then have to restore it after the combat. How long did you talk to the NPC? As long as you talked to the DM as the NPC, or two minutes if it was glossed over. How long did you take to search the bodies? One minute per body, divided by the number of PC's searching.[/Qupte]
> When I'm in character, I'm not looking at my watch.  I don't really know how long the conversation took with any degree of accuracy.  That's compounded when I have to give non-interactive information to PCs in the middle of the encounter ("you know that ...." or "you notice that his...."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you have it take one minute to search the adventurer with 7 sacks, pouches, bags of holding, hidden compartments and the same one minute to search the ogre with a loin cloth and club?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long did it take to search the hallway, with or without taking 20? Thats covered in the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which requires knowing how many 5 ft. squares the area they are searching is.  That's time spent calculating that, especially for irregular areas.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wereserpent

IMC, I am thinking of letting Wizards have the at will ability, but not the per encounter.  I am also thinking of just using the 3.5 magic system and letting them have the at will abilities.  I like the Vancian system(even if our group does not really follow it) and I am a little sad to see it go.

I am sorry if I am a little incoherent, I took some Bendadryl earlier, so I am a little out of it right now.


----------



## Merlion

Treebore said:
			
		

> What hindrance does it cause you? I understand the hindrance that the character goes through, but the players just hear "OK you rest for 8 hours then the spellcasters spend an hour praying/meditating/memorizing. Now how do you re enter the lair? Same as before?"
> 
> Plus, at higher levels, if everyone is getting th magic they "should" be getting, what are you doing with your wands, staves, rods, scrolls, etc...? I actually spent a lot of time, and money (no XP's, we all agreed spending XP's on scrolls was stupid, same with potions), so I rarely ever ran out of spells due to my scrolls.
> 
> So I wonder if people have these problems either because they don't use their abilities to offset these shortages, such as making a lot of scrolls, or another probablility, the DM's aren't giving the players the right depth of resources. IE not enough magic items, not enough money or time to make scrolls or potions, etc...
> 
> So I am curious if that is the "real" reason people even have these problems, or if it really is a problem with the mechanics of the system that are guilty.






  Remember also that many people dont want to rely on magic items for various reasons, and that in 4e magic items are to be de-emphasized. Which more or less means character abilities must compensate.

  I dont say this in a derogatory way, but it sounds to me as if you are mostly just implying that people who favor per-encounter abilities are in some way lazy or the like. As has been mentioned, people have had issues with the Vancian fire and forget system pretty much always, especially as it pertains to wizards...it tends to create frustrating and unfair situations in play.


----------



## Andre

Treebore said:
			
		

> So I am curious if that is the "real" reason people even have these problems, or if it really is a problem with the mechanics of the system that are guilty.




IMO, it's not a problem with the system - but for my group, it's just not fun. Hence, we changed the game to suit our preferences. There's no "right" answer here.

Consider it in this light. Imagine we have a new barbarian class. The class has two primary options - it can wield a dagger (with no strength bonus) or light crossbow all day. And a limited number of times per day, it can rage, which does enormous amounts of damage to various opponents. Oh, and if you have the right mix of items, you can rage a bit more often.

Would that really be more fun than the current barbarian?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.
> 
> I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.
> 
> So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?
> 
> I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?



It's all about the 15-minute adventuring day for me.  If you're going to reduce the downtime between encounters from 8 hours, why pick any value larger than zero, if what you're trying to do is just get the PCs to the next encounter?  Use HP for the daily endurance limit, and let every combat be punchy and exciting.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Glyfair said:
			
		

> It breaks the "suspension of disbelief" when you go in the dungeon, leave, rest for 8 hours, go back in, come back out, rest.




I had a wizard in one of my old groups who liked to "nova".  He'd cast as many spells as he could as fast as he could, many of which were buffs cast before combat, and he'd run out very quickly.  He knew that the party was hosed without him, so they would need to stop and rest as soon as he ran out of spells.  It got fairly tiresome.

On top of this, I like to play monsters at least halfway intelligently.  If the party retreats to rest for a day, the monsters should prepare for their return.  After three or four forays into the same lair, I get a bit sick of having to work out (and re-work) tactics for the newly-reduced monster populations.


----------



## Destil

At high level tracking spells per day can be a nightmare. There's a reason we see advice that high level spellcasters should have a few "default lists", a 20th level cleric has over 60 spell slots. Sure, it's great that they can totally change gears if they need to, but it takes a LOT of time to choose 60 spells across 10 levels, and usually that happens in play.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Merlion said:
			
		

> Remember also that many people dont want to rely on magic items for various reasons, and that in 4e magic items are to be de-emphasized. Which more or less means character abilities must compensate.
> 
> I dont say this in a derogatory way, but it sounds to me as if you are mostly just implying that people who favor per-encounter abilities are in some way lazy or the like.



I'll admit it.  I'm lazy.  I hate having to track time intervals.  I'd rather just say, you get one combat out of it, or two if they're right next to each other.  I'd rather not track how many rounds are left on the Haste, Divine Favour, Prayer, Displacement, Globe of Invulnerability, Evard's Black Tentacles, Spiritual Hammer, Holy Sword, three different Summon Monsters, and a room full of Confusions, having to remember who cast which so I can increment the duration on the correct initiative modifier (I'm also not thrilled about players who count rounds to calculate the caster level of my spellcasters).  Since combats generally don't last more than 10 rounds anyway, the difference is hardly worth caring about. 

Give me per-encounter spells and encounter durations.  I am not the obsessive information tracker I was in the heady days of my youth.


----------



## Merlion

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I'll admit it.  I'm lazy.  I hate having to track time intervals.  I'd rather just say, you get one combat out of it, or two if they're right next to each other.  I'd rather track how many rounds are left on the Haste, Divine Favour, Prayer, Displacement, Globe of Invulnerability, Evard's Black Tentacles, Spiritual Hammer, Holy Sword, three different Summon Monsters, and a room full of Confusions, having to remember who cast which so I can increment the duration on the correct initiative modifier (I'm also not thrilled about players who count rounds to calculate the caster level of my spellcasters).
> 
> Give me per-encounter spells and encounter durations.  I am not the obsessive information tracker I was in the heady days of my youth.





  Well, I do hope that many things will still have round/minute/hour etc durations, and I do worry a little about trying to have a set duration and/or definition for "encounter", but overall it all sounds interesting.


----------



## coyote6

Aside from Vance and D&D (the game, related fiction, and direct ripoffs of same), are there any other RPGs or fiction where powers are commonly limited on a "uses per day" basis? 

Fairy tales, maybe; but even then, it seems to me that it's usually more like "once per year" or the like, rather than "once per day" (let alone "once per day, must have 8 hours of rest, followed by 15-60 minutes of prayer/study/meditation before recovery).

There's the Midkemia books, where lesser wizards are so limited -- but they *are* D&D wizards (Midkemia was a group's D&D world), and they quickly get ignored in favor of the greater magic wielders, who don't have that limitation.

Even the Vlad Taltos novels, which are also (very loosely) based on a D&D game, don't have "per day" abilities, IIRC.

IIRC, in the later Amber books, Merlin comes up with a method of "hanging" spells, which works out a lot like D&D-style magic -- but there are plenty of other potent abilities around that don't have that limitation. 

Lots of games and fiction have powers & abilities that tire the user, which leads to said abilities not being used often -- once a day, and then done. But the users are then *tired*, and can't continue to merrily tramp along shooting their crossbow. They have to actually rest -- and they generally don't have to wait until the next day, either. 

In GURPS, you rest for an hour or so at max, and the spellcasters are good to go. You have to leave & rest when everybody's beat up, and already been healed enough such that the heal spells are likely to fail or critically fail, and maybe it's time to fall back. But that point might never come, if the players are smart and the characters sufficiently skilled/heavily armored.

In other games, you can run out of spell points/mana/whatever -- but a lot of them _don't_ have "recover them all at once, once per day" rules. You get back some amount over time -- so you can just rest the requisite time, and then get back at it. Exalted, for example -- the Dawn caste can blow all her Essence on one fight, then nap for a couple of hours and be semi-functional. 

So why is it so important? In one sense, it isn't; it's just a game. In another sense, it is because it doesn't let me play a game that's like anything but D&D fiction.

(And plenty of D&D books don't seem to play by the rules, either. The spellcasters either get physically worn out, or they just never seem to run out of spells until it's dramatically appropriate. Curious, that.)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard

This is one of the many things we've heard about 4e that I'm just not sure about...one way or the other.

On the one hand, I like the strategy involved in selecting spells and knowing they'll be gone afterwards. It makes them (more) special and really puts some weight on the decision.

On the other hand, it can be utterly painful, especially at lower levels.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.




Because in every campaign I have played in since I started playing D&D (oh 20+ years ago), you always have the group that uses all their spells, rages, what have you and they spike the door shut and sleep in the dungeon for 8 hours.

Hell, I did the same thing when I played Oblivion. Oh my magic is all drained and my hit points are low? Guess I'll just wait for an hour. Problem solved.

Couple that with the fact that when a character has utilized all of his abilities, he's pretty much worthless. A wizard without spells is like a gun without ammo. Yeah, I can bludgeon someone with it, but its hardly effective.

Balancing per encounter addresses those issues as well as makes balance of the game for designers a lot easier. If I create a monster and know that its going to get hit with abilities x, y, and z that's removing a lot of the guesswork and making the game easier to balance.

Balance per encounter is a win win in my eyes.


----------



## Vigilance

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.
> 
> I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.
> 
> So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?
> 
> I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?




Per encounter abilities in no way affect the fact that you'll have to plan your resources and occasionally retreat or risk becoming over-extended.

I mean, hit points are still a resource to be managed, and I'm fairly certain unlimited healing won't be available.

What I like about "per encounter abilities", especially as it pertains to the spellcasting classes, is that spells available was such a ludicrously limited resource in the Vancian magic system.

The idea that a spellcaster would have 10 *ROUNDS* of uptime per day is just silly.

And yes, I consider a Wizard firing a crossbow to be downtime. He's just hoarding his 10 rounds of glory until later. 

In other words, per encounter abilities might allow the party to continue adventuring longer before they need to rest. 

This doesn't mean resource management will be gone. It just means it won't necessarily be as common an occurance.


----------



## FireLance

"Per encounter" abilities might refer to abilities that are explicitly defined to refresh at the start of each encounter, but they might also refer to any of the following:

1. Abilities with a fairly short recharge time that nonetheless will last more than a typical encounter, say 1 or more minutes. 3e dragon breath is a similar mechanic, although the recharge time was measured in rounds.

2. Abilities that require some time to ready, and which are either difficult or impossible to ready in combat. 3.5e psionic focus is an example of such an ability. At lower levels, at least, it is generally difficult to regain your psionic focus in the middle of a fight, but regaining it is almost automatic between encounters.

Changing spell preparation (for some spells, at least) to remove the need for eight hours' rest and to simply require one or two minutes of meditation, prayer, or studying spellbooks effectively turns such spells into per encounter abilities without explicitly defining them as such.


----------



## Treebore

I have to admit if they can give a "good logic" explanation behind how and why its done it will make it much easier for me to accept.

Still, I can't help but think most fo the "problems" mentioned with Vancian magic have more to do with DM's throwing too much at a group.

I mean at low levels you know the mage only has one, maybe two first level spells, and if he is lucky and imaginative, he can even make zero level spells effective. Still, the DM knows those spells will be gone after one encounter. So why throw any more at the party that day?

This same basic fact remains for many levels. I find, as a general rule of thumb, that a mage is good for one encounter for every two levels they have. Granted, that does vary dependent upon the circumstances of the encounter, such as saves made and saves failed affect the number of spells that end up being cast. IE the longer the enemy stays standing the longer you throw spells.

So as far as the problems I have seen mentioned go, I wonder if they would be perceived as problems if better DM decisions took spell reserves into "proper" account. Meaning I wonder how many DM's really understand and take into consideration the number of spells mages can throw for how many combat rounds.

Then do they have a good sense of how long combats will last? For instance, most combats last 2 to 5 rounds. At higher levels, like around 8th, you'll start seeing battles lasting 6 to 10 rounds, depending on difficulty, resistances, DR, and immunities. Then around 15th level you'll see combats last 10 to 15 rounds, again depending on immunities, resistance, DR, and difficulty (difficulty being a combination of AC and HP's).

After that, in my experience only, combats actually became shorter. I don't think I ever saw a combat last more that 10 rounds after that, except in situations where we essentially went from fighting one group to another without a break. Then in the Epic level games I played in (I've never DMed Epic) the combats often lasted 2 or 3 rounds. Especially in the two games that went above 30th (one lasted to 48th, and the other lasted until 63rd). This is with wizards becoming practically useless because so many opponents at those levels are Highly resistant or totally immune to so many spell effects. The fighter types were that devastating.

So I have to ask, maybe this "shortcoming" of Vancian magic would be better taken care of by better teaching of the DM's. To give them strong guidelines on "guesstimating" how long combats will take, and how long, and for how many encounters, spellcasters will remain potent.

Then plan out their game accordingly.

Still, if they give a good premise, this new way of handling encounters could be very cool. Depending on how they justify how fast mages recover. Like Coyote 6 mentions, there is a lot of literary sources to pull from for ideas to turn into the "magic mechanic".


----------



## Mouseferatu

The problem, TB, is this:

As a DM, I'm perfectly capable of balancing a day's worth of encounters around the fact that the low-level wizard has one or two useful spells.

But I don't _want_ to, and my players don't want me to, because it feels terribly artificial. At low levels, dungeons only have one or two rooms? Or the goblin horde only launches one attack on the besieged city per day? Or the assassins wait 24 hours before a second attempt? Or the kidnapper's deadline has an extra day built into it to allow the party to rest? Or...

You see? When I'm playing D&D, be it as a player or a DM, the verisimilitude of the setting is one of the most important aspects to me. Without it, characters, plots, and adventures crumble. But the notion of a hero/adventurer who is only capable of meaningful action for about 18 second out of every day doesn't lend itself to that.


----------



## Sun Knight

I guess I have had very different gaming experience in 3.5 than James Wyatt because I see every combat encounter as a possibility of my character's demise and each one as exciting as the last.  Also the whole going in the dungeon for 1 hour then rest 8 seems lame.  In our group we would be in the dungeon for several hours, if not days at a time if it is a large complex, rest inside the dungeon every 12 to 16 hours.  This who idea of adventuring "9:00 to 9:05" just does not happen in my group.   

Our DM doesn't hold back either.  If my wizard is out of spells then I am out of spells.  I adapt my tactics and play as such.  That is why Spells aren't the only thing my wizard can do.


----------



## Treebore

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The problem, TB, is this:
> 
> As a DM, I'm perfectly capable of balancing a day's worth of encounters around the fact that the low-level wizard has one or two useful spells.
> 
> But I don't _want_ to, and my players don't want me to, because it feels terribly artificial. At low levels, dungeons only have one or two rooms? Or the goblin horde only launches one attack on the besieged city per day? Or the assassins wait 24 hours before a second attempt? Or the kidnapper's deadline has an extra day built into it to allow the party to rest? Or...
> 
> You see? When I'm playing D&D, be it as a player or a DM, the verisimilitude of the setting is one of the most important aspects to me. Without it, characters, plots, and adventures crumble. But the notion of a hero/adventurer who is only capable of meaningful action for about 18 second out of every day doesn't lend itself to that.





So your saying because you ignore the limitations of the wizard versimilitude is ruined? Maybe if you accepted the limitations of the mage, rather than have your world ignore them, versimilitude would be achieved.

Sorry, I can't accept your unwillingness to adapt to the wizards, and clerics, etc... as a good reason to change the whole game. Versimilitude starts from the ground up, so if you refuse to like the foundation the rest of what  you construct is always going to fail to please.

I guess since I have always accepted the limitations, and planned accordingly, and appreciated the challenge of those plans and choices, I have always had versimilitude in my games. If I wanted to change that I would go for a game like HARP, Rolemaster, etc... and gain my versimil.itude that way.

Then again, maybe the system they are developing for 4E will allow for a versatility in how magic is even done. So it may be modifiable to fit varying ideas of how magic works for various settings. Therefore allowing a wider range of "versimilitude" to be achieved.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Treebore said:
			
		

> So your saying because you ignore the limitations of the wizard versimilitude is ruined? Maybe if you accepted the limitations of the mage, rather than have your world ignore them, versimilitude would be achieved.




I'm saying that there's no reason for the villains and monsters of the world to build according to the wizards' weakness. If I'm a vampire designing my tomb, I'm not going to say "Gee, I better only have three rooms in this complex, or else an invading wizard might run out of spells." If I'm an evil cultist who's kidnapping sacrifices, I'm not going to postpone the ritual so the party of heroes chasing me can rest.

_That's_ what I mean about verisimilitude.

And yes, I think that what I've heard about 4E--with some per day abilities, but others that aren't so limited--sounds like it'll fit a lot better with what I feel makes sense.


----------



## Treebore

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'm saying that there's no reason for the villains and monsters of the world to build according to the wizards' weakness. If I'm a vampire designing my tomb, I'm not going to say "Gee, I better only have three rooms in this complex, or else an invading wizard might run out of spells." If I'm an evil cultist who's kidnapping sacrifices, I'm not going to postpone the ritual so the party of heroes chasing me can rest.
> 
> _That's_ what I mean about verisimilitude.
> 
> And yes, I think that what I've heard about 4E--with some per day abilities, but others that aren't so limited--sounds like it'll fit a lot better with what I feel makes sense.





Your right. I build the dungeon so it will hopefully take two or more days for the adventurers to get to me. That why I can run to a new hide out where they have to try and find me all over again. And the adventure continues.

Or, if I want the PC's to succeed I make sure the spellcasters have enough depth. They have plenty of potions, wands, scrolls, and other items to last through the dungeon marathon to get to the Vampire and stake it. Either way, versimilitude.


----------



## hong

Treebore said:
			
		

> Your right. I build the dungeon so it will hopefully take two or more days for the adventurers to get to me. That why I can run to a new hide out where they have to try and find me all over again. And the adventure continues.
> 
> Or, if I want the PC's to succeed I make sure the spellcasters have enough depth. They have plenty of potions, wands, scrolls, and other items to last through the dungeon marathon to get to the Vampire and stake it. Either way, versimilitude.



 ... or you could just get rid of the X/day abilities. Seems to save an awful lot of work.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

KnightErrantJR said:
			
		

> I don't know.  I can understand having a "little" more flexibility, but I'm concerned that this per encounter/at will/per day structure is "idiot proofing" PCs to the point to where what decision they may isn't that big a deal.  Should you use mage blast or one of your spells?  Eh, in the end, if you make the wrong choice, you have more choices, and you won't really be "wrong," you just may have to fight something for 8 rounds instead of three.





I worry about this as well, but wasen't original d&d idiot proof, well at least for fighters?


----------



## Sun Knight

One of the fun things about the game is to accumulate stuff, and using that stuff in the course of the adventure.  It seems that you want to get rid of that aspect of the game, Hong.  That aspect which is fun.


----------



## hong

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> One of the fun things about the game is to accumulate stuff, and using that stuff in the course of the adventure.  It seems that you want to get rid of that aspect of the game, Hong.  That aspect which is fun.



 Mang, this post is so videogamey.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Treebore said:
			
		

> Your right. I build the dungeon so it will hopefully take two or more days for the adventurers to get to me. That why I can run to a new hide out where they have to try and find me all over again. And the adventure continues.
> 
> Or, if I want the PC's to succeed I make sure the spellcasters have enough depth. They have plenty of potions, wands, scrolls, and other items to last through the dungeon marathon to get to the Vampire and stake it. Either way, versimilitude.




And the evil cultists? The kidnappers? The dragon demanding tribute? The war that's about to break out between nations if the PCs don't locate the spy who's fomenting dissent?

My point is that any system that assumes the heroes have to _stop_ after two minutes of combat is, _by definition_, more unrealistic* than it needs to be. (To say nothing of the fact that it's extremely limiting in the sorts of plots/stories/adventures that can be run.)

*(I'm actually referring to verisimilitude, not realism. But I can't think of a better word than "unrealistic.)

If _every time_ something like this happens, the PCs take an extra six days to reach their objective but the villain _still_ hasn't succeeded--or if the DM has to keep piling magic resources onto the PCs so they can accomplish the sorts of things that heroes in most fantasy fiction/myth do on their own--there's only so much weight the suspension of disbelief can stand before it crumbles.

Sure, I made it work in prior editions. Many good DMs did. That doesn't change the fact that it would've been better for the verisimilitude of the settings, the plots, and the villains if they didn't have to fudge the issue.


----------



## Sun Knight

hong said:
			
		

> Mang, this post is so videogamey.




Well, I prefer to find a wand of magic missiles with 13 charges than finding a generic wand +6.


----------



## Sun Knight

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> My point is that any system that assumes the heroes have to _stop_ after two minutes of combat is, _by definition_, more unrealistic* than it needs to be. (To say nothing of the fact that it's extremely limiting in the sorts of plots/stories/adventures that can be run.)




Um... then don't stop or allow the action to stop.  If the wizard uses up all his spells in the first combat then it sucks to be him.  Next time he shouldn't be so foolish.


----------



## hong

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Well, I prefer to find a wand of magic missiles with 13 charges than finding a generic wand +6.



 I'm charging up my "wand +6" RIGHT NOW, IYTIMAIKYD.


----------



## Vigilance

Treebore said:
			
		

> Your right. I build the dungeon so it will hopefully take two or more days for the adventurers to get to me. That why I can run to a new hide out where they have to try and find me all over again. And the adventure continues.
> 
> Or, if I want the PC's to succeed I make sure the spellcasters have enough depth. They have plenty of potions, wands, scrolls, and other items to last through the dungeon marathon to get to the Vampire and stake it. Either way, versimilitude.




Verisimilitude doesn't mean what you evidently think it means.

It doesn't mean "the way OD&D/Jack Vance did it".

You (obviously) have the right to dislike any changes to the magic system, but disliking it on the grounds of being more "realistic", seems very silly to me.

Vancian magic isn't any more realistic than final fantasy magic.

I think putting wizards on the same plane as fighters is a good thing myself. 

Also, getting rid of Vancian magic could well extend the sweet spot of D&D, which is currently about 5-15th level. 

Making mages have some staying power at low levels, and being less over-powered at high levels, would be a HUGE boon to the game imo.


----------



## Sun Knight

What I don't get is why people keep saying low level wizards have no staying power.  My low level wizard gets pretty much in every fight and stays in the game.  Then again I don't use his magic as a crutch.  Diversifying in tactics and strategy to use magic and the mundane makes the wizard have more staying power and more fun to play.  When the fighter is down, it is my wizard that goes into melee!


----------



## Vigilance

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> What I don't get is why people keep saying low level wizards have no staying power.  My low level wizard gets pretty much in every fight and stays in the game.  Then again I don't use his magic as a crutch.  Diversifying in tactics and strategy to use magic and the mundane makes the wizard have more staying power and more fun to play.  When the fighter is down, it is my wizard that goes into melee!




Yes, you can continue to participate once your spells are gone, or while hoarding them for that one five-round encounter.

You could also have a Fighter charge and attack with his unarmed attack for 1-2 while disarmed.

It's just not desirable, or fun for a lot of people.

Now imagine that the game's odds were stacked such that the fighter was going to break his weapon half the time, forcing him to either save his longsword for a "really important encounter" or use it early, and either arrive at the end of the adventure with a 1d2 attack, or make frequent trips back to town, or spend a lot of his money on lesser "back-up" weapons (the equivalent of a wand).

That's basically what the game does for mages.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Diversifying in tactics and strategy to use magic and the mundane makes the wizard have more staying power and more fun to play.  When the fighter is down, it is my wizard that goes into melee!




Yes, so you keep saying. And that's fine, if that's how you enjoy playing.

But many people--I'd even hazard a guess and say "most"--who choose to play a wizard do so because, well, they want to play a character that uses magic. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen even experienced players get that glazed-over look in their eyes when they realize that it's time for the wizard to break out the crossbow. (And not just because they're out of spells, either. Often, it's because it's become clear that a combat's not worth "wasting" magic on. And as often as not, what I've seen is players who say "Okay, you guys finish it off," rather than even bothering with the crossbow. Why? Because it's not the character they wanted to play, and/or because they know that their own contribution with the crossbow is going to be meaningless in the face of the fighter's greatsword and the ranger's longbow, and it's not worth the extra time it would take to roll the dice.)

And no, it's not because they're "power gamers" who want "unlimited magic." They're fine with the notion that they need to manage their spells. They just want to be able to contribute, _regularly_, with magic, in some way, shape, or form.

What they really need is a system that requires them to carefully manage their most potent spells, but gives them a wider variety of weaker magics they can use more regularly. Hey, wait...


----------



## Mouseferatu

BTW, the beauty of the new system, or at least what we know of it, is that we _both_ win. You can still choose to play a wizard who hoards his most potent magics, preferring to default to a crossbow or a staff. Nobody says you _have_ to use all the abilities the class presents. Heck, pretend your character doesn't even possess them. But it leaves the option open for the people who want more flexible magic.


----------



## hong

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> BTW, the beauty of the new system, or at least what we know of it, is that we _both_ win. You can still choose to play a wizard who hoards his most potent magics, preferring to default to a crossbow or a staff. Nobody says you _have_ to use all the abilities the class presents. Heck, pretend your character doesn't even possess them. But it leaves the option open for the people who want more flexible magic.



 One of the concepts I'd really like to play someday is the fighter who doesn't fight.  Now, in actuality he'd be a twinked out weapon master with a katana bastard sword, the usual bonuses, buffs and so on, but the core concept would be restraint. A true master wins the fight before it's even started, that sort of thing; he views it as a personal setback if he actually has to draw his sword. On those rare occasions when he does draw, this would set his achievements into even sharper relief.

In a similar vein, I could actually go for a wizard who doesn't... wiz? But this should be an active decision on my part, not something forced on me by the vagaries of the ruleset.


----------



## Mouseferatu

hong said:
			
		

> One of the concepts I'd really like to play someday is the fighter who doesn't fight.  Now, in actuality he'd be a twinked out weapon master with a katana bastard sword, the usual bonuses, buffs and so on, but the core concept would be restraint. A true master wins the fight before it's even started, that sort of thing; he views it as a personal setback if he actually has to draw his sword. On those rare occasions when he does draw, this would set his achievements into even sharper relief.




Interesting. How do you plan to go about modeling this in D&D? Maxed out ranks in skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate? Maybe a few unarmed fighting techniques for use in those cases where violence is inevitable but bloodshed is not?


----------



## Treebore

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Verisimilitude doesn't mean what you evidently think it means.
> 
> It doesn't mean "the way OD&D/Jack Vance did it".
> 
> You (obviously) have the right to dislike any changes to the magic system, but disliking it on the grounds of being more "realistic", seems very silly to me.
> 
> Vancian magic isn't any more realistic than final fantasy magic.
> 
> I think putting wizards on the same plane as fighters is a good thing myself.
> 
> Also, getting rid of Vancian magic could well extend the sweet spot of D&D, which is currently about 5-15th level.
> 
> Making mages have some staying power at low levels, and being less over-powered at high levels, would be a HUGE boon to the game imo.




1. The quality of appearing to be true or real.  
2. Something that has the appearance of being true or real.

Nope. I have a perfect understanding of the meaning.


----------



## outsider

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> What I don't get is why people keep saying low level wizards have no staying power.  My low level wizard gets pretty much in every fight and stays in the game.  Then again I don't use his magic as a crutch.  Diversifying in tactics and strategy to use magic and the mundane makes the wizard have more staying power and more fun to play.  When the fighter is down, it is my wizard that goes into melee!




Magic isn't a wizard's crutch.  Magic is a wizard's legs.

Melee(or more sensibly a crossbow) is a wizard's crutch.  It's something he should only be using when he's got a broken leg.  There's something wrong with a system that regularly breaks a wizards legs and calls it part of the fun.


----------



## hong

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Interesting. How do you plan to go about modeling this in D&D? Maxed out ranks in skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate? Maybe a few unarmed fighting techniques for use in those cases where violence is inevitable but bloodshed is not?



 Lots of ranks in Intimidate/Diplomacy, yep; in general, a decent smattering of social skills since 4E looks to be having more elaborate rules for this kind of thng. Naturally, a cooperative DM would be good to have, as well as a campaign that didn't revolve around dungeoneering or survival in the untamed wilderness (no sense being restrained when you're surrounded by monstrous horrors wanting to eat you). It's really the kind of concept that makes most sense against human opponents, as opposed to monsters.

One quirk about wuxia movies is that people often fight with sheathed swords (you see it in both CTHD and Hero). If I were DM, I would treat this as just a normal attack with the sword, with the -4 penalty for improvised weapons, and dealing reduced nonlethal damage. In any case, I tend to play fast-and-loose with the specifics of damage anyway: anyone reduced to 0 hp is "defeated", and whether that's dead or just unconscious is up to the person who defeated them. I posted about it before.


----------



## Vigilance

Treebore said:
			
		

> 1. The quality of appearing to be true or real.
> 2. Something that has the appearance of being true or real.
> 
> Nope. I have a perfect understanding of the meaning.




Ok.

So maybe you can explain to me how "can use magic a set number of times per encounter" emulates life less than "can use magic a set number of times per day" then.

Clearly, you prefer one over the other.

That's not the standard for life emulation last I checked.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I try to figure something out that is highly speculative but incorporates some things we heard about (just without the necessary details to understand how the system really looks like.)

Wizard prepares spells (possible less than today), say Magic Missile.
As long as he has Magic Missile prepared, he can fire a bolt of force as a ranged touch attack, dealing 1d6 + caster level points of damage per round. 
He can also cast, once per encounter, a a Magic Missile dealing 1d6 points of damage per 2 caster levels that automatically hits. 
And once per day, he can cast a Magic Missile that deals 1d6+caster level damage to 1 target per caster level, automatically hitting each target. (This use might remove the spells from his list of prepared spells, or make it impossible to use the spell again during this encounter.)

A Wizard prepares Mount (say, in his "utility silo" spell slot, if that how it works): 
As long as he has it prepared, he can do the following things: 
Summon a Heavy Warhorse or Warpony once per encounter that lasts for one minute, serving as his combat mount (or that of another character?)
Summon one Light Horse, Pony or Mule once per day, that lasts for two hours per level. (This use might or might not remove the spells from his list of prepared spells, or this use is exclusive with the other)

So you still have to decide: Which spell do I prepare? When do I use which benefit from the spell? When do I use the more powerful effect?)

This might not at all be how it will work, but it gives at least an example how using 1/encounter abilities can work in the great scheme without entirely removing resource management.

There is also a further alternative: Maybe spell casting times increase for some spells, which means that per day resource management ends up into per encounter resource management.


----------



## FireLance

I don't think the issue is running out of spells. Regardless of edition, a wizard that was out of spells (or who wished to conserve them) should still be able to find something to do. I think the key issue is that thus far, the wizard has been tapping on external and finite sources of power.

So, at low level, a wizard could throw darts or daggers or (in 3e) use a crossbow, but he was still limited by the amount of ammunition he had. At higher levels, when mundane ranged weapons are no longer significantly useful, a wizard could use a wand or a staff, but he would be limited by the charges in the wand or staff.

Per encounter abilities change these assumptions. A per encounter ability is innate, not external. A per encounter ability trades the limitation of finite uses for the limitation of a longer refresh time - a wand can be used in consecutive rounds, but a per encounter ability most likely will not.

I think that the idea of innate abilities might turn some people off because they see them as more powerful than external abilities. While I do agree than innate abilities have an advantage over external abilities in that they cannot be taken away (although if a wizard is still required to study his spell book to refresh his per encounter spells, he remains dependent on his equipment), whether or not this advantage is significant depends on how often your DM likes to take your gear away or sets up opportunities for you to lose them.

Similarly, finite abilities tend to make players more careful and conservative about using them, while infinite abilities tend to encourage players to use them. I think that whether you prefer one or the other depends on how you want your players to play your game. Some DMs prefer their players to be more cautious and to think more strategically would likely favor finite abilities, whereas a DM who wants to see his players use their abilities more often would likely favor infinite abilities.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> What I don't get is why people keep saying low level wizards have no staying power.  My low level wizard gets pretty much in every fight and stays in the game.  Then again I don't use his magic as a crutch.  Diversifying in tactics and strategy to use magic and the mundane makes the wizard have more staying power and more fun to play.  When the fighter is down, it is my wizard that goes into melee!



Well, on 1st or 2nd level, it almost works, because the crossbow firing is quite effective (due to the high dexterity most wizards have). But then... starting with 2nd- or 3rd- level, the difference between the wizard and all other classes (non-magic-wise) is too large. The crossbow becomes a worse weapon with every level, your hit points are so low, that you don't survive more than one full attack of your enemies - you basically try to hide und avoid being hit or seen.

Or you get a wand and start _blasting all the day_ - at will! And since most defeated encounters give you money, you can buy new wands! Effectively, you can soon have one or two trusty wands, which you can use _at will_!

Problem with wands and scrolls? Whether you craft or buy them, you start doing accounting. You check "how many charges do I have", "what utility spell may I need", "where do I get that wand"... and so on. And doing that bogs down the game, especially for the meleers, who need a sword and an armor.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Baby Samurai

Treebore said:
			
		

> Still, I can't help but think most fo the "problems" mentioned with Vancian magic have more to do with DM's throwing too much at a group.



Actually, it is the opposite for me – I usually throw too little at the party, in that I often might only throw one combat encounter in a day against the party, which means the casters can go ape-crap in that encounter.  And please don't give me the 'But they should track their resources because they don't know if there will be another encounter that day'.  When a party wants to rest, they can usually find a way to rest, especially at higher levels.  Also, the party shouldn't have to worry about these encounters that "may" or "may not" happen, it ruins suspension of disbelief - 

"_Well, I figure the DM needs to throw one more encounter against us to meet the quota_…" 

And this brings up another point, I don't want to have to feel contrived into throwing X encounters a day at a party, if I want to throw 1, or 13 encounters against the party, the rules should be balanced to accommodate that as the adventure/story/dungeon etc demands.

This assumed 4 encounters day malarkey has got to be one of the most arbitrary, and odd design decisions I've ever heard of – lame.

And the overpowered, antiquated, Pseudo-Vancian, Gygaxian magic/spell system has been a thorn in my side for 20 years – always loathed it.


----------



## shilsen

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Actually, it is the opposite for me – I usually throw too little at the party, in that I often might only throw one combat encounter in a day against the party, which means the casters can go ape-crap in that encounter.




I've been running an Eberron campaign that's 2.5 years old now, and 1 encounter a day is par for the course with us, with 2 much less often and 3 having happened maybe thrice in 60 sessions. And the 5-person party I have consists of 3 single-classed casters (1 wizard & 2 druids) and one multi-classed caster (paladin/cleric), so there's a whole lot of stuff being unloaded in that one fight. But I've found it fairly easy to still challenge them, even though they always fight enemies weaker than them, with an average of a PC hitting -10 every two sessions.



> And this brings up another point, I don't want to have to feel contrived into throwing X encounters a day at a party, if I want to throw 1, or 13 encounters against the party, the rules should be balanced to accommodate that as the adventure/story/dungeon etc demands.
> 
> This assumed 4 encounters day malarkey has got to be one of the most arbitrary, and odd design decisions I've ever heard of – lame.




As mentioned above, I don't think the assumed 4 encounters a day really has any material effect on the game. The rules are balanced enough, or at least flexible enough, that you can easily play with much less or much more encounters regularly. YMMV, and apparently does.


----------



## F4NBOY

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> One of the fun things about the game is to accumulate stuff, and using that stuff in the course of the adventure.  It seems that you want to get rid of that aspect of the game, Hong.  That aspect which is fun.




What game are you talking about? WoW? Yeah, there is a lot of acumulation there, we need lots of bags. God bless the auction house.


----------



## Merlion

The rules should work around the players and DM, not the other way around.


----------



## Merlion

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Um... then don't stop or allow the action to stop.  If the wizard uses up all his spells in the first combat then it sucks to be him.  Next time he shouldn't be so foolish.





  Low level wizards have no choice. If you only have 3 or 4 spell slots, they are going to go quick. And thats what the designers are apparently shooting for...giving a wizard magic-related resources apart from just fire and forget spells.

  I've seen all your going on about crossbows and melee but the point is you should be able to play your class in its role throughout the "adventuring day", rather than having to either stop and rest, or resort to basically not acting as a wizard anymore. 

  What you prespose is most likely to only lead to frustration of the wizard player. And the usual stop and rest every few minutes leads to the other players resenting those playing spellcasters. 




			
				outsider said:
			
		

> Melee(or more sensibly a crossbow) is a wizard's crutch. It's something he should only be using when he's got a broken leg. There's something wrong with a system that regularly breaks a wizards legs and calls it part of the fun.





  Exactly.


----------



## Lord Zardoz

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.




There are a few reasons.

1)  Given the way the game is frequently played at this point, most per day abilities may as well be per encounter abilities.

1a)  While I know that a DM can change this easily by running more fights in one day, combats take pretty long at the moment.  While busting out the dice to run a fight between a 1st level party and 2 dire rats is CR appropriate, it is also not very interesting.  If I am going to run a fight, I want it to be tactically interesting.

2)  It becomes easier to balance combat encounters in a non railroaded game.  You do not have to worry quite as much about an encounter being too difficult if the player has used all his 3rd level spells, but too easy if he has not used any of them.  This in turn means it no longer matters if the players do combat X before combat Y.

3)  As a player, you get to do your cool things more often rather than worrying about holding back for later.

4)  As a DM, you no longer need to worry quite so much about whether or not a caster type going 'nova' and blasting out every high end spell he has, or if he is going to pace himself.

5)  It helps verisimilitude if you do not have to have the players go to bed after every other fight to recover their abilities.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Aus_Snow

Hm.

So, how many people were clamouring for a mage to be able to do more all the time, *before* the relevant details of 4e were released? Or has 4e suddenly shown just about everyone (or perhaps, nearly everyone who is "vocal" in this forum, for example) something they didn't realise about the horrors of playing a mage in 3e, 2e, 1e, BECMI, B/X and OD&D (and the rest). . .?

Other than those people involved directly or otherwise in the development and/or marketing of 4e at any stage, I mean. Of course, they might be slightly biased, and understandably so: it's their baby. Well, -to-be, anyway. That's cool.

But as far as just gamers/fans/readers/whatever go, was this even a "problem" prior to the "solution" that is being touted as such?


Because yeah, it seems to me that a *lot* of people on- and offline play wizards, and hey, some even play sorcerers!  And, furthermore, it seems that many such gamers love playing these classes. As is, in 3e. As *was*, in 3e, even. Like, core f'rex. So. . .

 Yeah, I just don't see the "issue" in the first place. Not IRL.


----------



## hong

Just because people develop coping behaviours (purposefully holding back with spells, resting after one fight, etc) doesn't mean they want to continue with those behaviours....


----------



## Aus_Snow

hong said:
			
		

> Just because people develop coping behaviours (purposefully holding back with spells, resting after one fight, etc) doesn't mean they want to continue with those behaviours....



Like say, coping with the near-unbearable harshness of having to decide when to utilise the most powerful force in the entire game system, with even psionics possibly included? (but certainly in core and just about anywhere else. . .)

Oh, the humanity!


----------



## hong

"FEAR the wielder of the most POWERFUL FORCE in the ENTIRE GAME SYSTEM!"

"D00d, you can use bat guano, we get it already."


----------



## Aus_Snow

I never said they weren't totally batsh-nevermind crazy. 

I think.


----------



## Wolfwood2

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Hm.
> 
> So, how many people were clamouring for a mage to be able to do more all the time, *before* the relevant details of 4e were released? Or has 4e suddenly shown just about everyone (or perhaps, nearly everyone who is "vocal" in this forum, for example) something they didn't realise about the horrors of playing a mage in 3e, 2e, 1e, BECMI, B/X and OD&D (and the rest). . .?




They were all over.

Just as an example, look at how the Warlock is possibly the most popular of the non-core classes in 3.5.  It's not because the Warlock is so incredibly powerful.  It's because lots and lots of people really love the idea of being able to "do something magic every round" and they are willing to play a weaker character just for the chance to do that.

Look at the popularity of "Reserve Feats".  Again, not that powerful, but lots of folks were taking them just for the sweetness of magic every round.

Don't mistake the fact that most people had resigned themselves to D&D being D&D for the desire not being there.  It just didn't get talked up a lot, because without more house-ruling than most people want to do there was no point.


----------



## drothgery

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Hm.
> 
> So, how many people were clamouring for a mage to be able to do more all the time, *before* the relevant details of 4e were released? Or has 4e suddenly shown just about everyone (or perhaps, nearly everyone who is "vocal" in this forum, for example) something they didn't realise about the horrors of playing a mage in 3e, 2e, 1e, BECMI, B/X and OD&D (and the rest). . .?




Well, more than once I've had PCs recommend that the party call it a day after one or two combat scenes because they're out of spells (or out of high-level spells). That hasn't happened much to my current warmage, because the cleric usually runs out of spells first (because while my warmage is just blasting, he's trying to blast, summon stuff, cast buffs, and heal -- and he's got fewer spell slots), but it has happened to a lot of other characters. And that's kind of lame.


----------



## Merlion

People have complained about the various and sundry problems of the Vancian system, especially as regards Wizards, for as long as it has existed.

  Various companies have published alternatives too the Vancian system for some time because of that. Even in 2nd edition skills and powers there were variant non-Vancian magic systems. Thats why Monte Cook didn't use it in Arcana Evolved. Just look at all the D20/OGL games that have non-Vancian systems. 

  Even the inclusion of the Sorcerer in 3e was a nod to this to some extent.

So, if you havent seen the complaints, you may not have been paying attention. Or you may simply like to try and invalidate peoples excitement over/liking of new content, for some odd reason..


----------



## broghammerj

Badkarmaboy said:
			
		

> I'd say it's due to the lag time after encounters.  Who wants to wait a day between each big encounter?  It leads spell casters to "over husband" spells too.  I know I do it sometimes with my cleric.
> 
> I think having a system that allows for a few big per day abilities and some mild to moderately useful per encounter abilities would be good.  Keeps the flow of the game up better.
> 
> Just my two cents.




The problem that I have with statements like these is how does it really affect you?  Yes, the story line is fragmented and not ideal, but it doesn't REALLY affect gameplay.  If our group told the DM we rest for the night, five minutes of real times passes and we are back off to adventuring again.  The rare exception would be if we had a random encounter.  It may break up the story we are trying to tell, but doesn't really affect actual playing.


----------



## Sun Knight

Merlion said:
			
		

> Low level wizards have no choice. If you only have 3 or 4 spell slots, they are going to go quick. And thats what the designers are apparently shooting for...giving a wizard magic-related resources apart from just fire and forget spells.




That is why my wizard tends to memorize spells that have durations for hours, like Mage Armor.  A spell that has lasting power don't you know.  When my wizard is in a hard fight he often has an Armor Class no lower than 20 and heads in with a sword or his staff.  In fact most of his kills have been done in melee, not with a crossbow.



> I've seen all your going on about crossbows and melee but the point is you should be able to play your class in its role throughout the "adventuring day", rather than having to either stop and rest, or resort to basically not acting as a wizard anymore.




Acting like a wizard?  You expect me to play the stereotypical wizard with a pointy hat and floppy robes?  Sorry, but I gave up on that type of wizards decades ago.  I play wizards who are just as physically self sufficient as any other character in the party and use my spells not as one shot booms, but long lasting durations that keep my character and my party alive.   



> What you prespose is most likely to only lead to frustration of the wizard player. And the usual stop and rest every few minutes leads to the other players resenting those playing spellcasters.




Nope, not at all.  My character rests when the rest of the party rests and if he is out of spells for the day before then, then he is out and I have him use his other abilities.  I don't play one trick ponies, don't you know.  In fact the next feat he is getting is going to be Two Weapon Combat.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I try to figure something out that is highly speculative but incorporates some things we heard about (just without the necessary details to understand how the system really looks like.)
> 
> Wizard prepares spells (possible less than today), say Magic Missile.
> As long as he has Magic Missile prepared, he can fire a bolt of force as a ranged touch attack, dealing 1d6 + caster level points of damage per round.
> He can also cast, once per encounter, a a Magic Missile dealing 1d6 points of damage per 2 caster levels that automatically hits.
> And once per day, he can cast a Magic Missile that deals 1d6+caster level damage to 1 target per caster level, automatically hitting each target. (This use might remove the spells from his list of prepared spells, or make it impossible to use the spell again during this encounter.)
> 
> A Wizard prepares Mount (say, in his "utility silo" spell slot, if that how it works):
> As long as he has it prepared, he can do the following things:
> Summon a Heavy Warhorse or Warpony once per encounter that lasts for one minute, serving as his combat mount (or that of another character?)
> Summon one Light Horse, Pony or Mule once per day, that lasts for two hours per level. (This use might or might not remove the spells from his list of prepared spells, or this use is exclusive with the other)
> 
> So you still have to decide: Which spell do I prepare? When do I use which benefit from the spell? When do I use the more powerful effect?)
> 
> This might not at all be how it will work, but it gives at least an example how using 1/encounter abilities can work in the great scheme without entirely removing resource management.
> 
> There is also a further alternative: Maybe spell casting times increase for some spells, which means that per day resource management ends up into per encounter resource management.




Interesting speculation.  Hopefully what appears in the books will be just as good.


----------



## Merlion

broghammerj said:
			
		

> The problem that I have with statements like these is how does it really affect you?  Yes, the story line is fragmented and not ideal, but it doesn't REALLY affect gameplay.  If our group told the DM we rest for the night, five minutes of real times passes and we are back off to adventuring again.  The rare exception would be if we had a random encounter.  It may break up the story we are trying to tell, but doesn't really affect actual playing.





  You missed all the posts about suspension of disbelief and versimilitude apparently.

And it does affect gameplay. It means you have to decide wether to set a watch and who to do it. And it means you have to re prepare spells etc.


----------



## broghammerj

Merlion said:
			
		

> You missed all the posts about suspension of disbelief and versimilitude apparently.
> 
> And it does affect gameplay. It means you have to decide wether to set a watch and who to do it. And it means you have to re prepare spells etc.




Sorry I did.  I skipped to the second page lol.....I am racing off to work.


----------



## Sun Knight

That is why we don't rest after every encounter.  We just go on.  If my wizard is out of spells, so be it, but very rarely is he out of spells after a day's worth of adventuring.


----------



## Merlion

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> That is why my wizard tends to memorize spells that have durations for hours, like Mage Armor.  A spell that has lasting power don't you know.  When my wizard is in a hard fight he often has an Armor Class no lower than 20 and heads in with a sword or his staff.  In fact most of his kills have been done in melee, not with a crossbow.
> 
> 
> 
> Acting like a wizard?  You expect me to play the stereotypical wizard with a pointy hat and floppy robes?  Sorry, but I gave up on that type of wizards decades ago.  I play wizards who are just as physically self sufficient as any other character in the party and use my spells not as one shot booms, but long lasting durations that keep my character and my party alive.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not at all.  My character rests when the rest of the party rests and if he is out of spells for the day before then, then he is out and I have him use his other abilities.  I don't play one trick ponies, don't you know.  In fact the next feat he is getting is going to be Two Weapon Combat.






  First off, I never said anything about pointy hats. To me Wizard=Magic. Wizards accomplish things through supernatural power, not physical means. Thats the point.

  Wizards as it stands dont HAVE "other abilities". they have spells. You can choose to take combat feats etc with your wizard, but they arent going to do him much good. Now of course your going to argue that and go on about all the stuff your wizard can do without spells. Fine, whatever...but thats not what most people want out of playing a wizard. They want to do magic.

 If the current system works great for you, great. but thats not the case for everyone.
 Coming in and attempting to invalidate peoples desire to be able to do that by going on about how much you enjoy your "melee wizard" or whatever is a bit silly.


----------



## hong

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Acting like a wizard?  You expect me to play the stereotypical wizard with a pointy hat and floppy robes?  Sorry, but I gave up on that type of wizards decades ago.




If the rules do not support the most obvious use that people want to put them to, then it doesn't matter how many non-obvious uses they do support.


----------



## Merlion

broghammerj said:
			
		

> Sorry I did.  I skipped to the second page lol.....I am racing off to work.





  Sorry if I was a bit sharp then


----------



## Scribble

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.
> 
> I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.
> 
> So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?
> 
> I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?





I don't think it's really a case of making the game "better." I think it's a case of making the game more in line with how things actually happen.

I've noticed in almost any game I've been in, whether as a player or a DM, the game flows like this:

Enter dungeon, fight a monster (or two) then as soon as the wizard or cleric is out of spells everyone stops and "camps."

No one is really willing to continue if there isn't any magical backup around. 

So in a sense everything being per day, or per encounter, doesn't matter because it's easy to just "camp" whenever you need to restock.

Why not just ditch the ignored part?


----------



## Sun Knight

Merlion said:
			
		

> First off, I never said anything about pointy hats. To me Wizard=Magic. Wizards accomplish things through supernatural power, not physical means. Thats the point.




To me Wizards are just another profession that allows one to use magic, but in order to truly be an adventurer one should not limit oneself to just one trick.  You lose the edge of adaptability.  Such as if you are playing a wizard in go into an area where magic is completely unreliable, and in fact may spawn "living spells" that can harm your party than help if you aren't adaptable you become more of a liability to the party than anything else.



> Wizards as it stands dont HAVE "other abilities". they have spells. You can choose to take combat feats etc with your wizard, but they arent going to do him much good.




I wholly disagree.  My wizard's first combat feat was Weapon Finesse with with my 14 Dexterity and 10 Strength it really upped my melee potential.  It most certainly made him more versitile in combat and often uses his combat abilities when the fighter is unable to.  He is far more effective in melee than the bard, cleric or the ranger/warlock that is in the party.



> Now of course your going to argue that and go on about all the stuff your wizard can do without spells. Fine, whatever...but thats not what most people want out of playing a wizard. They want to do magic.




Yet the wizard can do so much more than just magic.  I don't see why we, as players, be forced to limit ourselves to the stereotype.  It just seems silly to me.



> If the current system works great for you, great. but thats not the case for everyone.
> Coming in and attempting to invalidate peoples desire to be able to do that by going on about how much you enjoy your "melee wizard" or whatever is a bit silly.




I am just saying change for the sake of change is never any good, and personally I just don't see the need to drastically change magic from what it is in 3.5e.  Minor tweaks would be nice, like what is done with AE, but major rewriting of the system is just not needed.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Merlion said:
			
		

> People have complained about the various and sundry problems of the Vancian system, especially as regards Wizards, for as long as it has existed.
> 
> Various companies have published alternatives too the Vancian system for some time because of that. Even in 2nd edition skills and powers there were variant non-Vancian magic systems. Thats why Monte Cook didn't use it in Arcana Evolved. Just look at all the D20/OGL games that have non-Vancian systems.
> 
> Even the inclusion of the Sorcerer in 3e was a nod to this to some extent.



Right, and which RPG has been the MOST successful?  D&D.  With its quirky spell-prep, with its dramatic moments of wizards down to their last spell or resorting to staves and daggers, and so on.  So why is it that those other systems didn't succeed to the extent that D&D did, if D&D's magic system was so horribly flawed?


----------



## Sun Knight

I my ever so humble opinion I think that the Vancian Spell System is what gives DnD its unique flavor with all the other systems out there.  There are many many RPGs that uses spell points/mana rules and such.  Only one I know of that uses the Vancian system is DnD/d20.


----------



## Merlion

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Right, and which RPG has been the MOST successful?  D&D.  With its quirky spell-prep, with its dramatic moments of wizards down to their last spell or resorting to staves and daggers, and so on.  So why is it that those other systems didn't succeed to the extent that D&D did, if D&D's magic system was so horribly flawed?







> I my ever so humble opinion I think that the Vancian Spell System is what gives DnD its unique flavor with all the other systems out there. There are many many RPGs that uses spell points/mana rules and such. Only one I know of that uses the Vancian system is DnD/d20.





Then why do so many people who play it complain about it and/or change it in their own games?

  And why then did the designers feel it was finally time to if not remove it, make it less central to the use of magic in the game?


----------



## Merlion

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> To me Wizards are just another profession that allows one to use magic, but in order to truly be an adventurer one should not limit oneself to just one trick.  You lose the edge of adaptability.  Such as if you are playing a wizard in go into an area where magic is completely unreliable, and in fact may spawn "living spells" that can harm your party than help if you aren't adaptable you become more of a liability to the party than anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> I wholly disagree.  My wizard's first combat feat was Weapon Finesse with with my 14 Dexterity and 10 Strength it really upped my melee potential.  It most certainly made him more versitile in combat and often uses his combat abilities when the fighter is unable to.  He is far more effective in melee than the bard, cleric or the ranger/warlock that is in the party.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the wizard can do so much more than just magic.  I don't see why we, as players, be forced to limit ourselves to the stereotype.  It just seems silly to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I am just saying change for the sake of change is never any good, and personally I just don't see the need to drastically change magic from what it is in 3.5e.  Minor tweaks would be nice, like what is done with AE, but major rewriting of the system is just not needed.






  Oh dear. it isnt a sterotype. Look up "Wizard" in the dictionary. A Wizard is someone who DOES MAGIC.

  I have no problem with branching out. But a wizards main focus, and currently only truly mechanically viable option is magic. You should be able to play a magical wizard, remain effective, and not have to resort to other means.


----------



## Sun Knight

Merlion said:
			
		

> Then why do so many people who play it complain about it and/or change it in their own games?




Because the grass is always greener on the other side.  I have played spell point/mana system in the past and I just do not like them.  



> And why then did the designers feel it was finally time to if not remove it, make it less central to the use of magic in the game?




To change the game for the sake of change.  Two words:  Marketing ploy.


----------



## Sun Knight

Merlion said:
			
		

> Oh dear. it isnt a sterotype. Look up "Wizard" in the dictionary. A Wizard is someone who DOES MAGIC.
> 
> I have no problem with branching out. But a wizards main focus, and currently only truly mechanically viable option is magic. You should be able to play a magical wizard, remain effective, and not have to resort to other means.




Its not the only viable option, but I do agree it is their main focus and yes, my wizard do use spells quite a bit.  My main thing is that a truly effective character is one who can be effective without needing to be so limited to just his baseline abilities.  A character that can't adapt is less effective than a character that can.  It doesn't matter if you are wizard, fighter, rogue, cleric, or whatever.


----------



## Merlion

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Because the grass is always greener on the other side.  I have played spell point/mana system in the past and I just do not like them.
> 
> 
> 
> To change the game for the sake of change.  Two words:  Marketing ploy.





  You dont like them, and love the Vancian system. Fine.

 Many, many people feel differently. If your already happy with what you have, why not leave them alone?


  You realize people screamed "marketing ploy" about 3rd edition and its changes as well. As near as I can tell, the designers are responding to the desires of a majority of their fan base.


----------



## Merlion

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Its not the only viable option, but I do agree it is their main focus and yes, my wizard do use spells quite a bit.  My main thing is that a truly effective character is one who can be effective without needing to be so limited to just his baseline abilities.  A character that can't adapt is less effective than a character that can.  It doesn't matter if you are wizard, fighter, rogue, cleric, or whatever.





  This is about being able to be effective while staying within your primary role. Most people play a class for its primary role. So to be faced with being ineffective in that role while many of the other players can still keep going is frustrating and problematic for many.


Not for you, I realize. But the game isnt being designed for you.


----------



## SteveC

hong said:
			
		

> If the rules do not support the most obvious use that people want to put them to, then it doesn't matter how many non-obvious uses they do support.



Hong, you beat me to this! If the only way you can play a class in a particular range of levels is to play *against *the stereotype you see of that class in books, comics and movies, there is something *wrong *with it. Even in a series of books like the Black Company, where the wizard characters physically mix it up as much as I have ever seen, they're still doing magical things for the most part.

The bottom line is that D&D magic emulates a very small subset of fantasy novels and as someone who has read the original Vance novels/short stories, it doesn't even do that very well. Where are all the books with wizards who have to pull out a crossbow because they can't do any more magic, exactly?

As far as why these rules are seen as very important, it's because people don't want a situation where wizards can just cast all of their spells all day long, they want one where a wizard can use magic all day long, *still be a balanced member of the group*, and not overshadow other characters *at any level*. That's why these changes are so important: it's not about making wizards better, it's about making them able to be wizards across all the levels and also not be out of line with the rest of the group.

--Steve


----------



## Sun Knight

Merlion said:
			
		

> You realize people screamed "marketing ploy" about 3rd edition and its changes as well. As near as I can tell, the designers are responding to the desires of a majority of their fan base.




I wouldnt say the majority of thier fan base, just the majority of the fan base who bothers to go to these and the wizard forums.


----------



## Doug McCrae

The old paradigm of the wizard holding back until he was needed and the fighter-types dealing with most encounters only worked with large dungeons, where most encounters were fairly easy - 4 orcs, 7 giant rats, etc. For the past 30 years or so people have been running more than just dungeon bashes so it would be a good idea if the game finally supported this style of play while remaining balanced *and* still supporting dungeon bashes. Hence balancing the game on a per-encounter basis.

Now you can have one encounter in a day without the casters dominating. You can have 20 encounters and the wizard still gets to do his thing.


----------



## Merlion

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I wouldnt say the majority of thier fan base, just the majority of the fan base who bothers to go to these and the wizard forums.





  We really have no way of knowing that. And neither do the designers.

But, they can see the inherent mechanical flaws in the current system. 


You dont see them as flaws, but from the point of view of their overall design philosophy, the wizard not be able to keep up with the other classes stamina wise, while staying in role, is a flaw.


----------



## Sun Knight

SteveC said:
			
		

> Hong, you beat me to this! If the only way you can play a class in a particular range of levels is to play *against *the stereotype you see of that class in books, comics and movies, there is something *wrong *with it. Even in a series of books like the Black Company, where the wizard characters physically mix it up as much as I have ever seen, they're still doing magical things for the most part.




So is my wizard.



> The bottom line is that D&D magic emulates a very small subset of fantasy novels and as someone who has read the original Vance novels/short stories, it doesn't even do that very well. Where are all the books with wizards who have to pull out a crossbow because they can't do any more magic, exactly?




To be honest I don't read much fantasy.  I much rather game fantasy than read fantasy.  I am pretty much the opposite when it comes to science fiction.



> As far as why these rules are seen as very important, it's because people don't want a situation where wizards can just cast all of their spells all day long, they want one where a wizard can use magic all day long, *still be a balanced member of the group*, and not overshadow other characters *at any level*. That's why these changes are so important: it's not about making wizards better, it's about making them able to be wizards across all the levels and also not be out of line with the rest of the group.
> 
> --Steve




I don't really get this obsession about balance.  Every class has its strengths and weaknesses, but trying to balance them all to have the same strengths and the same weaknesses at all levels seems a bit... bland to me.   :\


----------



## WhatGravitas

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> Yet the wizard can do so much more than just magic.  I don't see why we, as players, be forced to limit ourselves to the stereotype.  It just seems silly to me.



But with the current system, *we are limited to a Vancian stereotype*. With 4E (if you buy it), what's hindering you from playing a wizard in the same way as before? Just because you can use your "Wizard Strike" all the time, you don't have to, right? Don't limit yourself to the stereotype, just don't do it.

And those people who want to "Wizard Strike" all the day, do it - how is that affecting you?

And everybody is happy. 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Merlion

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> So is my wizard.
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest I don't read much fantasy.  I much rather game fantasy than read fantasy.  I am pretty much the opposite when it comes to science fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really get this obsession about balance.  Every class has its strengths and weaknesses, but trying to balance them all to have the same strengths and the same weaknesses at all levels seems a bit... bland to me.   :\





  Who said anything about having the SAME strengths and weaknesses?


The problem is with classes like the Cleric, that have no real weaknesses...or instances where a class has a weakness that is far greater than the weaknesses of other classes.

  The point is for a rough equality of effectiveness to occur.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Merlion said:
			
		

> So, if *you* havent seen the complaints, *you* may not have been paying attention. Or *you* may simply like to try and invalidate peoples excitement over/liking of new content, for some odd reason..



That would be me, I assume. Please at least indicate by name/username (by using the quote function, say) the stranger you are going to casually attribute undesirable motives to, next time.

In this instance, you are also dead wrong. But that is hardly the point.


Anyway, regarding these masses of long-suffering arcane-class players, would you be so kind as to provide some sort of evidence (e.g., links) to back those claims of yours up with?

I'm even open to some anecdotal. . . "evidence". Anything, really.


----------



## Sun Knight

I do agree the cleric needs some work.  I found dropping their hit die to 1d6, and removing medium and heavy armor proficiencies does the trick quite well.


----------



## Merlion

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> That would be me, I assume. Please at least indicate by name/username (by using the quote function, say) the stranger you are going to casually attribute undesirable motives to, next time.
> 
> In this instance, you are also dead wrong. But that is hardly the point.
> 
> 
> Anyway, regarding these masses of long-suffering arcane-class players, would you be so kind as to provide some sort of evidence (e.g., links) to back those claims of yours up with?
> 
> I'm even open to some anecdotal. . . "evidence". Anything, really.






  Read through these and the wizard forums. Complaints about Vancian magic etc are pretty commonplace and widespread. But I dont think anything I say or that you see will affect your view. And thats fine, but just as several people have said to Sun Knight, the change wont prevent you from playing Vancian wizards, but will allow those of us who have issues with it to have even more options, so whats the problem?


----------



## SteveC

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> To be honest I don't read much fantasy.  I much rather game fantasy than read fantasy.  I am pretty much the opposite when it comes to science fiction.
> 
> I don't really get this obsession about balance.  Every class has its strengths and weaknesses, but trying to balance them all to have the same strengths and the same weaknesses at all levels seems a bit... bland to me.   :\



I hope that you don't take this as an insult, because it isn't intended that way: if you don't read the source material for the game, and you don't get the importance of balance, you are really in no position to make arguments about how the wizard class should be designed.

The current D&D Wizard fails on the "emulates the genre" test, and it also fails at both high and low levels at the "is it balanced" test. It is better at both of those things than previous editions of the game to be sure, but there is still a lot that can be done. To me, those are two very good reasons to make further changes to the class. I don't know if the new wizard will be better in 4E, and I won't until I see it, but it sounds like they are working to address some problems that I see in the game. To me, that's a good thing 

--Steve


----------



## Sun Knight

My problem is 25 spell levels.  Am I the only one who sees that as a bit excessive?


----------



## WhatGravitas

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> I my ever so humble opinion I think that the Vancian Spell System is what gives DnD its unique flavor with all the other systems out there.  There are many many RPGs that uses spell points/mana rules and such.  Only one I know of that uses the Vancian system is DnD/d20.



Hmmm... thinking 'bout that... what about a "Tome of Vancian Magic" released shortly after 4E, perhaps even by a 3rd-party-publisher (assuming quality work)... perhaps from Necromancer Games (with the new tagline: "4th Edition rules, 3rd edition feel!")?

I see the possibility that such a product will pop up soon after 4E. Would you buy and use it? (sheer curiosity)

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Merlion

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> My problem is 25 spell levels.  Am I the only one who sees that as a bit excessive?





  I dont see how the number of spell levels is relevent, if the spells are balanced.


----------



## Sun Knight

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Would you buy and use it? (sheer curiosity)




Probably not because I am not going to buy 4e if things what I have heard about it stay true.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Merlion said:
			
		

> Read through these and the wizard forums. Complaints about Vancian magic etc are pretty commonplace and widespread. But *I dont think anything I say or that you see will affect your view*. And thats fine, but just as several people have said to Sun Knight, the change wont prevent you from playing Vancian wizards, but will allow those of us who have issues with it to have even more options, so whats the problem?



The onus of proof is in fact on you, not me. In other words, if you make a claim, it only helps your case to back it up.

I *have* "read through" (and posted at) these and other forums - but not WotC's - for years now. In various subforums. At some stages, almost daily. Like lately, for example.

I *am* honestly willing to believe that those aggrieved masses slipped my attention somehow. All you need to do is prove it.

And again, you should probably steer clear of such charming (and again, false) statements as the part I have bolded in the quote above. They are not widely considered to be "good form", and all that. I haven't reported either of them to a moderator. But if you wish to continue down that road, I don't have any other (board-friendly) option available to me.


----------



## Merlion

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> The onus of proof is in fact on you, not me. In other words, if you make a claim, it only helps your case to back it up.
> 
> I *have* "read through" (and posted at) these and other forums - but not WotC's - for years now. In various subforums. At some stages, almost daily. Like lately, for example.
> 
> I *am* honestly willing to believe that those aggrieved masses slipped my attention somehow. All you need to do is prove it.
> 
> And again, you should probably steer clear of such charming (and again, false) statements as the part I have bolded in the quote above. They are not widely considered to be "good form", and all that. I haven't reported either of them to a moderator. But if you wish to continue down that road, I don't have any other (board-friendly) option available to me.





  Well, since you don't wish me to express my feelings to you, and I really have no way to "prove" what I am saying other than going and posting links to the various ubiquitious threads on the subject, and cant really see how you could never have seen such posts before, and since you're now resorting to threats (and also failed to answer my question), I think the only solution is this. You think what you think...and how things are are fine for you. Great. I have issues with how it is now and think the changes will be an improvement. And that is the last I will be saying toward you.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> Then why do so many people who play it complain about it and/or change it in their own games?
> 
> And why then did the designers feel it was finally time to if not remove it, make it less central to the use of magic in the game?




Same reason they decided that you should have to create monsters using the same rules as PCs, or made AoOs requiring a list of what provoked them, or any of the other things they are now "fixing" with 4.0:  because they thought it sounded good at the time.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> My problem is 25 spell levels.  Am I the only one who sees that as a bit excessive?



Yes and no. I see the need for a more fine-grained system. But I also see the possibility of over-complication.

But if they do it right...

Let's see: Imagine each spell is a package, consisting of one at will-ability, one per encounter-ability, and one per day-ability. Now you can memorize one spell package for each level you have, each from the appropriate level... so for a 5th level mage: One 1st-package, one 2nd-package, one 3rd-package, one 4th-package, and one 5th-package.

That's five packages on fifths... meaning 25 on 25th. Compare to the sorcerer and his known spells, and most people don't call the sorcerer complicated. Sounds reasonable?

But if they do it wrong, they'll get a mess. But I don't think they'll be that stupid.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Same reason they decided that you should have to create monsters using the same rules as PCs, or made AoOs requiring a list of what provoked them, or any of the other things they are now "fixing" with 4.0:  because they thought it sounded good at the time.





  So you dont think they are making any of the changes because theres mechanical reason to believe it will improve the game?

 And/or because it is inline with what players have expressed a desire for?


----------



## Wormwood

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> My problem is 25 spell levels.  Am I the only one who sees that as a bit excessive?




Actually, I'm predicting there will be 30 spell levels---one for each character level.

It would also be reasonable to assume that an 18th-level spell in 4e is about as powerful as a ninth-level spell was in 3e. 

Long overdue, IMHO.


----------



## Wormwood

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> So, how many people were clamouring for a mage to be able to do more all the time, *before* the relevant details of 4e were released?




I had *no idea* how crappy my television looked until I got an HDTV.


----------



## AllisterH

For me, it's a flavour issue.

I can understand "It will take me X minutes to rest/refocus/meditate/gather my chi" (which is how per-encounter works in IH/SWSE/Bo9S) versus the seemingly arbitary numer of times one can use an ability in a per-day system.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Merlion, that was in all honesty not a threat. Trying to insult people on these forums is considered unacceptable, by the terms and conditions here, etc. I'm not making this stuff up.

I think the best thing I can do in this situation is something I really don't like doing. But, IL it is. :\

I will continue to voice my opinions, yes even in this forum, and even if those opinions should be at odds with the majority, or a vocal minority. But I won't have to do it with that kind of stuff being slung towards me, now. 

Because yeah, I forgot about that other option, before.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

A general question -- will a "per-encounter" system lead to PCs retreating from a combat and resting for 1 minute (or whatever is necessary) to reset their per-encounter abilities? 

And a specific response to the idea that a wizard's "thing" is casting spells.  I thought that 3E went a good way towards designing challenges that fit the wizard's OTHER major role in myth and legend -- the Knower of Things.  Wizards' intelligence and problem-solving abilities were called out as assets in the Moldvay red book Basic Set, but were not really quantified until the Knowledge skills came into play.  Now, I worry that 4E is going to drop that aspect of a wizards' role in favor of just spell-slinging.

If DMs really enforced Knowledge checks, and tweaked monsters' abilities and weaknesses so that metagaming is impossible, the wizard's Knowledge skills were invaluable.  A good 3E campaign made wizard's intelligence and knowledge just as useful as their spells.


----------



## Raven Crowking

SteveC said:
			
		

> Hong, you beat me to this! If the only way you can play a class in a particular range of levels is to play *against *the stereotype you see of that class in books, comics and movies, there is something *wrong *with it.




Certainly, I agree.  However, I think that the Vancian system has allowed this more than you realize.

Overall, in almost any classic fantasy story, wizards _do_ guard their spells and _are_ careful about how much magic they use.  How many spells does Gandalf actually cast?  In the Earthsea books, we are told that "To light a candle is to produce a shadow" (or words to the same effect) and that magic should be used sparingly.  Certainly, in _A Wizard of Earthsea_, Ged doesn't gain his abilities "per encounter"....the Shadow is able to wear him down slowly by preventing him from resting fully.

I'd be happy to grant that there are all sorts of fantasy novels/films that have appeared, using either (skewed) D&D or computer games as their source of "magical" inspiration, but these resonate far less with me (and I suspect, some others) than the original material from which the genesis of their ideas emerged.

So, we have Harry Potter, who can presumably use any spell he knows any time he likes, but who cannot simply summon the Golden Egg or the Goblet of Fire to him because it would ruin the plot of _Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire_.....or for that matter simply summon the Golden Snitch, making Quiddich a short game indeed.

We also have the dark sorcerers of REH, guarding their magics for when they are needed, Gandalf doing likewise, Ged doing likewise, Merlin doing likewise, and most of the magical types of most of the pre-D&D fantasies doing likewise.

I would rather the game emulate the classical fantasy books than Harry Potter.  I know that not everyone feels that way, but then neither is everyone going "Woot!  I can emulate Harry Potter now!" either.


RC


----------



## Dalberon

"I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such."

I like the idea for several reasons.

Spellcasters become more interesting/fun to play for new players. There are several people I have met that I would love to have in my gaming group. They are interesting, entertaining to talk to, and have a creative streak a mile long...but they either don't get the rules or find that playing a wizard isn't as entertaining when they have to resort to melee. After the 5th miss in combat, its not uncommon to hear new players looking for ways to punish their dice...

I think alot of the discussions that have been taking place on these boards have been with how these changes affect the PCs and their downtime. I am not sure if people are actually considering how these changes affect combat for the adversaries. With combat becoming more lethal (supposedly you would be able to dish out more damage), I think the chance for more life threatening encounters happen from start to finish...not at just X encounter of the day. I really liked the battle at Helm's Deep in the LotR movies...I can see that kind of massive and fast paced combat taking place with the revision to the rules.

Regardless of what 4e will bring to us, those that don't like the changes will still have a viable and established game system in 3.5 Ed. I wouldn't be surprised if there were still folks playing 2nd Ed or the Basic Box Set.


----------



## gizmo33

I'm not following how this is supposed to work.  If you remove daily resources then any encounter that is not a measurable threat to the PCs will be completely meaningless.  At least in 3E an encounter that didn't threaten the lives the PCs could at least threaten their daily resources.  Daily spells, hitpoints, and healing magic were the approximators of "fatigue" in 3E.  And if there are daily resources of some kind, and the difficulty of individual encounters are increasing, then isn't the calculation of resting for the day still the same as it was before?


----------



## Rykion

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Hm.
> 
> So, how many people were clamouring for a mage to be able to do more all the time, *before* the relevant details of 4e were released? Or has 4e suddenly shown just about everyone (or perhaps, nearly everyone who is "vocal" in this forum, for example) something they didn't realise about the horrors of playing a mage in 3e, 2e, 1e, BECMI, B/X and OD&D (and the rest). . .?



My current group has never used by the book Vancian magic.  The first change we made was to quit forcing memorization.  Casters still had limited spells per day and had to rest to recover them, but they could cast any combination of spells they knew.  We also gave wizards a relatively weak ray attack that didn't use up any slots, so they're never completely out of magic.  Most of my players still prefer the magic systems from other RPGs.


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Certainly, I agree.  However, I think that the Vancian system has allowed this more than you realize.
> 
> Overall, in almost any classic fantasy story, wizards _do_ guard their spells and _are_ careful about how much magic they use.  How many spells does Gandalf actually cast?  In the Earthsea books, we are told that "To light a candle is to produce a shadow" (or words to the same effect) and that magic should be used sparingly.  Certainly, in _A Wizard of Earthsea_, Ged doesn't gain his abilities "per encounter"....the Shadow is able to wear him down slowly by preventing him from resting fully.
> 
> I'd be happy to grant that there are all sorts of fantasy novels/films that have appeared, using either (skewed) D&D or computer games as their source of "magical" inspiration, but these resonate far less with me (and I suspect, some others) than the original material from which the genesis of their ideas emerged.
> 
> So, we have Harry Potter, who can presumably use any spell he knows any time he likes, but who cannot simply summon the Golden Egg or the Goblet of Fire to him because it would ruin the plot of _Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire_.....or for that matter simply summon the Golden Snitch, making Quiddich a short game indeed.
> 
> We also have the dark sorcerers of REH, guarding their magics for when they are needed, Gandalf doing likewise, Ged doing likewise, Merlin doing likewise, and most of the magical types of most of the pre-D&D fantasies doing likewise.
> 
> I would rather the game emulate the classical fantasy books than Harry Potter.  I know that not everyone feels that way, but then neither is everyone going "Woot!  I can emulate Harry Potter now!" either.
> 
> 
> RC






  Yes, in more or less all fantasy mages guard/hoard their power to varying degrees. Almost always because they have a finite amount of "energy" and/or it tires them physically or mentally. And there is often also (as in the case of Gandalf, who isnt really a wizard, and in Earthsea) of their use being limited on more philosophical/later ramifications grounds. 


  However, I dont really feel that the Vancian deal of "forgetting" a spell when its cast, and having to have multiple "copies" of a given spell "prepared" in order to create a given effect more than once fits with this very well. 

  I think there are pitfalls in what they are suggesting definitely. I still think I will like the Arcana Evolved base magic system better. And for people to like the Vancian system is fine, but I dont really think it reflects the source material that well (the issue of wanting to conserve magic is going to exist to some extent in any balanced system), and I dont think its much of a shakes mechanically either.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Rykion said:
			
		

> My current group has never used by the book Vancian magic.  The first change we made was to quit forcing memorization.  Casters still had limited spells per day and had to rest to recover them, but they could cast any combination of spells they knew.  We also gave wizards a relatively weak ray attack that didn't use up any slots, so they're never completely out of magic.  Most of my players still prefer the magic systems from other RPGs.



Cool! Thanks for replying, in such a way as to shed some more light.

Much appreciated. 

So I take it this house-ruling has gone well? Oh but, er, when you say "_still_ prefer. . ." -  Are they just not so big on D&D in general. . .?


----------



## F4NBOY

Sun Knight said:
			
		

> When my wizard is in a hard fight he often has an Armor Class no lower than 20 and heads in with a sword or his staff.  In fact most of his kills have been done in melee, not with a crossbow.
> 
> Acting like a wizard?  You expect me to play the stereotypical wizard with a pointy hat and floppy robes?  Sorry, but I gave up on that type of wizards decades ago.  I play wizards who are just as physically self sufficient as any other character in the party and use my spells not as one shot booms, but long lasting durations that keep my character and my party alive.




But you are playing a "stereotypical" wizard! You are playing Gandalf! 
All this talking that wizards should use their spells wisely, that the wizard player that uses all spells in the first encounter is a fool and all the ideas you have that I saw from this and other posts regarding magic, you are just playing a LOTR "stereotyped" wizard.  

Playing a character, a wizard, the hardest way possible is not cool and doesn't make you a better player than the others that prefer to play the wizard the way they think and wish he was meant to be played, it's just different and harder... so please stop the with "How to play a Wizard" lecture.
If you really know how to play a Wizard so effectively, why don't you play a "stereotypical" wizard with a pointy hat that uses spells all the time? Because you can't, the system doesn't let you do it properly.

I also played a wizard for years and as you I rarely runned out of spells. I always had dozens of scrolls, some wands and other magical gear that let me be magically useful in the game all the time but the cost of that, higher than the XP and gold, was all the gaming time I spent calculating all that stuff. It was not fun and I hope they make it better this time. 

I never cared about melee combat because my character was a wizard student since childhood, so it would look rather silly that when he finally became an adventurer he would just grab a sword and start fighting alongside the fighter. :\ 

Sometime it is fun to play a class in a whole different way and it's great when the system lets you do it, but the system should at least let you play the class in the most "stereotycal" way possible, because that's how most of the players will want to play it.

And BTW what the heck is a stereotypical character in a game that is a sum of stereotypes from thousands of different sources?


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'm not following how this is supposed to work.  If you remove daily resources then any encounter that is not a measurable threat to the PCs will be completely meaningless.  At least in 3E an encounter that didn't threaten the lives the PCs could at least threaten their daily resources.  Daily spells, hitpoints, and healing magic were the approximators of "fatigue" in 3E.  And if there are daily resources of some kind, and the difficulty of individual encounters are increasing, then isn't the calculation of resting for the day still the same as it was before?





  First off, I dont see Hit Points changing much at all.

Second, from what little we know, it seems that characters...or really I think most specifically spellcasters, will still have spells per day, but will also have per day and per encounter non spell abilities. So its still very possible to have greatly reduced resources, and for enemies to go after them. I think it just basically boils down to that whatever happens a Wizard will actually be able to do *something* magical, even if its not much, rather than being forced to pull out a crossbow.


----------



## gizmo33

Dalberon said:
			
		

> I really liked the battle at Helm's Deep in the LotR movies...I can see that kind of massive and fast paced combat taking place with the revision to the rules.




Yea, I can see a Helm's Deep type battle happening...and again...and again...and again in a given day.  So you can have a Helm's Deep battle, then fight the Balrog, then go and kill Sauron and as long as you consider them all seperate encounters all of this happens in the same day.  There's no sense of a journey and fatigue in the adventure, just a bunch of nuisance encounters until you get to the ones that can kill you.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yea, I can see a Helm's Deep type battle happening...and again...and again...and again in a given day.  So you can have a Helm's Deep battle, then fight the Balrog, then go and kill Sauron and as long as you consider them all seperate encounters all of this happens in the same day.  There's no sense of a journey and fatigue in the adventure, just a bunch of nuisance encounters until you get to the ones that can kill you.





  Except that chances are there are rules in place to avoid what you describe, we just dont know what they are yet.

  Remember, we still know very little. We know that wizards will have per day and per encounter abilities in addition to the usual spells. Thats pretty much it. Hardly enough to come to this sort of conclusion based on.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> I think it just basically boils down to that whatever happens a Wizard will actually be able to do *something* magical, even if its not much, rather than being forced to pull out a crossbow.




And that's the thing I really don't understand, because the quotes from the WotC designers seem to say that they want to redesign the way the game plays in terms of resource management.  If all they're doing is changing a "crossbow" to an equally powered magic-missle, then you still have the same resource management 9:00-9:15 adventuring problem that you had before.  

I would like to change crossbow to the magic-missle design if for nothing other than flavor reasons.  However, in current 3E if you're at 80% effectiveness you might continue to adventure because of the idea that you'll probably only use 25% resources on the next encounter.  But knowing each possible encounter could be a 100% resource situation, anything less than optimal will *still* cause PCs to rest.  So if they're keeping hitpoints and some daily spells, it just seems to me that it winds up becoming the same basic game flow.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> So you dont think they are making any of the changes because theres mechanical reason to believe it will improve the game?
> 
> And/or because it is inline with what players have expressed a desire for?




How is that different from "Same reason they decided that you should have to create monsters using the same rules as PCs, or made AoOs requiring a list of what provoked them, or any of the other things they are now "fixing" with 4.0: because they thought it sounded good at the time."?

Sure, they think it will improve the game.

Sure, they think it is what the players want/will want.

*But* simply because they believe this doesn't make it true.  Nor is it true that people's initial ideas of what they want turn out to be what they actually want, once they've had the chance to examine them.  Witness the many, including WotC designers working on 4e, who thought that certain 3.X design elements would be ideal until they discovered that they changed the play experience in unexpected ways, or created additional problems (such as increased DM workload).

I do not believe that the game will necessarily be improved by making the classes more mechanically even.  Right now, and moreso in previous editions, there are certain roles that the various classes are optimized for playing in the game world.  Some of these roles are not particularly combat-oriented.  I suppose that is a difference in seeing D&D as a game in which combat has a large part, and seeing D&D as a combat-oriented game.  As a player of wizards in previous editions, I never saw going toe-to-toe with monsters as my "role".  Rather, I saw my role as provider of information through divination spells, advice, backup, and the occasional magical whammy.  That seems, to me, an endangered species under the new rules.  4e will, apparently, make that doubly true.

When classes are not mechanically even, they require taking different approaches to the same problem.  This was a strength of the system.  I would hate to see that strength utterly removed.


RC


----------



## Dalberon

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yea, I can see a Helm's Deep type battle happening...and again...and again...and again in a given day.  So you can have a Helm's Deep battle, then fight the Balrog, then go and kill Sauron and as long as you consider them all seperate encounters all of this happens in the same day.  There's no sense of a journey and fatigue in the adventure, just a bunch of nuisance encounters until you get to the ones that can kill you.




I suppose it depends on how you play. There is a lot of hype for resting between battles or retreating and re-grouping...generally that is the DM checking to see if your sleep is interrupted by a random encounter and asking how you are returning to the combat site. Maybe 5 min of dialogue and some character sheet maintenance. If you are lucky, you might have some interesting RP between players at that point, but I don't see much more redeeming an element than that.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> And that's the thing I really don't understand, because the quotes from the WotC designers seem to say that they want to redesign the way the game plays in terms of resource management.  If all they're doing is changing a "crossbow" to an equally powered magic-missle, then you still have the same resource management 9:00-9:15 adventuring problem that you had before.
> .





  Mathmatically perhaps. But conceptually, its a pretty big difference.

Also, I think the options will be a little broader than that. It may be more than that Wizards will always have some sort of magical *attack* that would just equate to the crossbow. A Wizard who has expended their daily spells may still be able to choose to put an enemy to sleep for instance, or give them attack penalties or the like.




> However, in current 3E if you're at 80% effectiveness you might continue to adventure because of the idea that you'll probably only use 25% resources on the next encounter. But knowing each possible encounter could be a 100% resource situation, anything less than optimal will still cause PCs to rest. So if they're keeping hitpoints and some daily spells, it just seems to me that it winds up becoming the same basic game flow.





  Perhaps. I think it will create more options, and even the "fatigue levels" between classes.

I dont think most parties will rest every time it could be a 100% resource situation. I think that as it stands most parties especially at lower levels are forced to rest because the spellcasters, especially wizards, dont really have %s. They generally tend to go right from 100% to more or less nothing at low levels. Whereas the more militant types can keep going. I think it will simply result in Wizards and a few other classes will be able to keep up with the likes of Fighters, Rogues, Rangers and Paladins, so that the party will be able to keep going, with everyone's effectiveness dropping at a similar rate, until finally the *whole party* is down to almost nothing, and then they rest.

  As oposed to resting when the casters are out of spells but everyone else is still fine to keep going for quite a while.


----------



## Grog

Rykion said:
			
		

> My current group has never used by the book Vancian magic.  The first change we made was to quit forcing memorization.  Casters still had limited spells per day and had to rest to recover them, but they could cast any combination of spells they knew.




My group used this exact same house rule back when we were playing 1E&2E. We probably would have kept using it in 3E if they hadn't made the sorceror.


----------



## gizmo33

Dalberon said:
			
		

> If you are lucky, you might have some interesting RP between players at that point, but I don't see much more redeeming an element than that.




The first interesting aspect of managing your resources is that _every_ combat matters - not just the one's you can win easily - because if you aren't careful about how you cast your spells, you'll have fewer for the next battle.  A critical hit might not kill a powerful fighter, but it might force a difficult decision about whether or not to use a daily healing spell.  Also, it's pretty standard for an intelligent adversary not the sit around and wait for PCs to sleep before counter-attacking.  That means that the descision whether to sleep and where also has to be taken seriously.  The significance of resource management goes far beyond just resting for the day.

When facing a fortress of evil bad guys, the sum total encounters in the fortress need to be considered in 3E because you might get through only part and then the fortress will counter-attack.  In the proposed 4E system (according to the design goals) it won't matter - the PCs can go through all 1000 encounter areas and if a single one doesn't become a life or death situation, they're essentially all a meaningless waste as the effectiveness of the PCs is reset to 100% each time.  There's no grimace from the players when a kobold hits the party fighter with a critical because he can just get his hitpoints back at the end of it all.  (And if he can't then we're back to the 3E rest situation).


----------



## Rakin

Easy=Fun! Duh!

I wonder if there's anything good on TV tonight...


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How is that different from "Same reason they decided that you should have to create monsters using the same rules as PCs, or made AoOs requiring a list of what provoked them, or any of the other things they are now "fixing" with 4.0: because they thought it sounded good at the time."?
> 
> Sure, they think it will improve the game.
> 
> Sure, they think it is what the players want/will want.
> 
> *But* simply because they believe this doesn't make it true.  Nor is it true that people's initial ideas of what they want turn out to be what they actually want, once they've had the chance to examine them.  Witness the many, including WotC designers working on 4e, who thought that certain 3.X design elements would be ideal until they discovered that they changed the play experience in unexpected ways, or created additional problems (such as increased DM workload).
> 
> I do not believe that the game will necessarily be improved by making the classes more mechanically even.  Right now, and moreso in previous editions, there are certain roles that the various classes are optimized for playing in the game world.  Some of these roles are not particularly combat-oriented.  I suppose that is a difference in seeing D&D as a game in which combat has a large part, and seeing D&D as a combat-oriented game.  As a player of wizards in previous editions, I never saw going toe-to-toe with monsters as my "role".  Rather, I saw my role as provider of information through divination spells, advice, backup, and the occasional magical whammy.  That seems, to me, an endangered species under the new rules.  4e will, apparently, make that doubly true.
> 
> When classes are not mechanically even, they require taking different approaches to the same problem.  This was a strength of the system.  I would hate to see that strength utterly removed.
> 
> 
> RC






  I'm not sure I understand. How will making it so Wizards don't run out of resources quicker than the other classes eliminate this? 

  And how does having the option to remain more effective in combat for longer and/or having more combat options effect that?  Just because a wizard will be able to be an effective combatant across a larger number of encounters doesnt mean you have to do so. If you prefer to play your wizard as sitting back and providing intelligence and information with the occasional massive magical intervention, how will any of this stop you? Unless you really believe they are going to more or less remove non-combat magic and skills from the game, which seems unlikely to me.


  As to the rest. Yes, of course their believing it will improve it doesnt mean it will...or at least, that it will for everyone. But thats going to be true regardless. If something is flawed, you have the choice to either repair or replace it, or simply leave it as it is. Obviously, they are going to do a new edition and make changes, and some of them will be good and some of them probably wont be. So what of it? The other option is to simply leave it as it is, which is viable but unlikely to happen. 


  Also, belief aside, I feel that there are certain things that could be mechanically, factually found to "improve" the game from the perspective of a certain design philosophy. Now some people arent going to like that philosophy...but those changes can be more or less gauranteed to be "improvements" from the point of view of those that do.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> .  In the proposed 4E system (according to the design goals) it won't matter - the PCs can go through all 1000 encounter areas and if a single one doesn't become a life or death situation, they're essentially all a meaningless waste as the effectiveness of the PCs is reset to 100% each time.).





Where are you getting this impression exactly?


----------



## Dalberon

"In the proposed 4E system (according to the design goals) it won't matter - the PCs can go through all 1000 encounter areas and if a single one doesn't become a life or death situation, they're essentially all a meaningless waste as the effectiveness of the PCs is reset to 100% each time."

I think its a bit early to assume that everything resets every encounter. From what I have read, I get the impression that you will be able to still function at a depressed level with a reduction in effectiveness. With remenants of the old spell system still in place, I still think that players will have to manage their resources and that battles will still wear on them as they go through them. One poster likened it to the prepared spells being more effective or damaging with reusuable abilities having less of a 'tide turner' effect. I believe the goal is to mitigate downtime, not eliminate it.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> Where are you getting this impression exactly?




Post #15 has the quote from James Wyatt's blog - and this matches what I've seen elsewhere (though it could, theoretically, all be due to a single source).


----------



## Merlion

Dalberon said:
			
		

> "In the proposed 4E system (according to the design goals) it won't matter - the PCs can go through all 1000 encounter areas and if a single one doesn't become a life or death situation, they're essentially all a meaningless waste as the effectiveness of the PCs is reset to 100% each time."
> 
> I think its a bit early to assume that everything resets every encounter. From what I have read, I get the impression that you will be able to still function at a depressed level with a reduction in effectiveness. With remenants of the old spell system still in place, I still think that players will have to manage their resources and that battles will still wear on them as they go through them. One poster likened it to the prepared spells being more effective or damaging with reusuable abilities having less of a 'tide turner' effect. I believe the goal is to mitigate downtime, not eliminate it.





  Exactly. Just because their will be "per encounter abilities" doesnt mean those abilities will be sufficient to deal with every situation.

  And yes, a party can still *choose* to rest constantly and reset themselves to 100%, but thats already the case...and as it is you have to do so. And you usually have to do so when most of the party is still at 70 or 80% because the Wizard is already down to 0%. This will change that


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand. How will making it so Wizards don't run out of resources quicker than the other classes eliminate this?




The best answer to that question would be found by perusing the class role information supplied in earlier editions of the game.  

Simple answer:  Knowing that you have finite resources, but that those resources are usually the most effective resources available when used, changes the way in which you go about using said resources.  If your resources are the same as all other characters, in terms of both when they can be used and how effective they are, then there is nothing significant in game terms to differentiate your role from any other.

Which is why, I imagine, that WotC is now telling you what your class role is supposed to be.


RC


----------



## gizmo33

Dalberon said:
			
		

> I think its a bit early to assume that everything resets every encounter. From what I have read, I get the impression that you will be able to still function at a depressed level with a reduction in effectiveness.




Isn't that what we have already?  Having your wizard use a crossbow instead of spells *is* operating at reduced effectiveness.  Granted, they could just be replacing the crossbow with something more "wizardly", but it makes no difference in terms of resource management.  Here's the quote I keep referring to:



> Originally Posted by James Wyatt's blog
> See, in 3e there's a basic assumption that an encounter between four 5th-level PCs and one CR 5 monster should drain away about 25% of the party's resources, which primarily translates into spells (and primarily the cleric's spells, which determine everyone else's total hit points). What that actually means is that you get up the morning, then have three encounters in a row that don't reallly challenge you. It's the fourth one that tests your skill—that's where you figure out whether you've spent too much, or if you still have enough resources left to finish off that last encounter. Then you're done. So basically, three boring encounters before you get to one that's really life or death.
> 
> It kind of makes sense, mathematically. The problem is, it's not fun. So what lots of people actually do, in my experience, is get up in the morning and have a fun encounter: there are multiple monsters that are close to the PCs' level, so the total encounter level is higher than their level. There's interesting terrain and dynamic movement. Sometimes there are waves of monsters, one after another. Whew! It's a knock-down, drag-out fight that could really go either way. And it's fun!




So first of all, why is he talking about "25% resources" and stuff if all he wants to do is replace the crossbow with something equivalent (or maybe a little more powerful)?  What, according to the author, is "fun" (reminds me of the reading comprehension part of the SATs).  My answer - Waves of monsters, and a *fight that can go either way*

Well according to common sense (as I understand it), everyone is going to want to be at 100% effectiveness when the fight can go either way.  Also, it seems logically that you either have daily resources or you don't.  The rest of it is just connecting the dots.


----------



## AllisterH

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> A general question -- will a "per-encounter" system lead to PCs retreating from a combat and resting for 1 minute (or whatever is necessary) to reset their per-encounter abilities?
> 
> .




Not likely since if the players are designed on the mixture of per day, at-will and per-encounter basis, the monsters will probably be designed on that same basis as well. So if you're thinking "I'll simply reload and retry" the monster itself should also have reloaded as well so the PCs don't gain any advantage.

Furthermore, there's also the fact that unless the monsters don't follow the retreating characters, being on the run will prevent reseting of their powers. 

re: Hitpoint recovery.
Gizmo33, This, we don't actually know much about. Remember, we have a MIX of per day, at-will and per encounter, 

In both SWSE and Bo9S, it isn't possible to go through 1000 battles since your HP recovery system is tied to a per-day system or a condition that only occurs in battle. For example, SW has the "Second Wind" feature (use a swift action to regain 1/4 of your total HP or your CON score, whichever is greater) but it only works once a day. Whereas the devoted spirit "healing" strikes aren't sufficient by themselves to heal a character to full and are not useable outside of combat.

Thus, a  party in 4E might not be as dependent on a cleric as before but if IH/SWSE/Bo9S are anything to go by, if you actually want to do an "Iron Man" marathon  style adventure, you will NEED dedicated healers.


----------



## Jedi_Solo

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Isn't that what we have already?  Having your wizard use a crossbow instead of spells *is* operating at reduced effectiveness.  Granted, they could just be replacing the crossbow with something more "wizardly", but it makes no difference in terms of resource management.




The most obvious difference (to me anyway) if it the crossbow becomes an unlimited magical attack the you lose nothing even if you have to roll a 20 to hit.  If you fire with a crossbow you've a bolt that you won't have later when you can hit something that doesn't require a 20.  And the magical attack doesn't require any additional bookkeeping.


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The best answer to that question would be found by perusing the class role information supplied in earlier editions of the game.
> 
> Simple answer:  Knowing that you have finite resources, but that those resources are usually the most effective resources available when used, changes the way in which you go about using said resources.  If your resources are the same as all other characters, in terms of both when they can be used and how effective they are, then there is nothing significant in game terms to differentiate your role from any other.
> 
> Which is why, I imagine, that WotC is now telling you what your class role is supposed to be.
> 
> 
> RC





  But....if you still have access to all the same abilities, you can still play the same way you did before...

  I cant really understand why you would want some classes to have more and more effective resources than others. *different types of abilities and capabilites* yes. And I dont see how any of that is going to change. Making it so one or two classes dont simply run out of steam before all the others in no way makes all characters or all roles the same, it just means one class won't suddenly become incapable of filling any of its possible roles while most of the others still can.


  Now, I do also have my worries about the "role" stuff and all the talk of "Defenders, Strikers" etc. I think its fine as long as it isnt taken too far. It could be useful as a shorthand and an explanation of a classes usual role and greatest basic strengths in combat, as long as they dont forget that a Ranger is a RANGER first, and a "striker" simply as shorthand etc. Hopefully, they wont let one eclipse the other.

  However I will say also that the books have been telling you a classes role in combat at least since 3e.


----------



## Dalberon

AllisterH said:
			
		

> For example, SW has the "Second Wind" feature (use a swift action to regain 1/4 of your total HP or your CON score, whichever is greater) but it only works once a day. Whereas the devoted spirit "healing" strikes aren't sufficient by themselves to heal a character to full and are not useable outside of combat.
> 
> Thus, a  party in 4E might not be as dependent on a cleric as before but if IH/SWSE/Bo9S are anything to go by, if you actually want to do an "Iron Man" marathon  style adventure, you will NEED dedicated healers.




This is more along the lines of what I was expecting. You could battle longer, but you would still be wore down. On the same note, you could push back an opponent only to have them 'redouble' their effort and challenge the players anew.

"Now, I do also have my worries about the "role" stuff and all the talk of "Defenders, Strikers" etc. I think its fine as long as it isnt taken too far. "

I think this is going to be terminology to help group classes. The first thing that comes to mind are  MMO Raid Roles...but that may not be the best example.


----------



## Rykion

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> So I take it this house-ruling has gone well? Oh but, er, when you say "_still_ prefer. . ." -  Are they just not so big on D&D in general. . .?



There hasn't been any problem with the houseruling.  We play a lot of RPGs, not just D&D/D20.  D&D is one of the most popular.  The players that like magic type characters seem to prefer systems with mana/magic points, or ones that have a mechanic that makes low power spells safe to cast all day, but powerful ones a gamble.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Isn't that what we have already?  Having your wizard use a crossbow instead of spells *is* operating at reduced effectiveness.  Granted, they could just be replacing the crossbow with something more "wizardly", but it makes no difference in terms of resource management.  Here's the quote I keep referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> So first of all, why is he talking about "25% resources" and stuff if all he wants to do is replace the crossbow with something equivalent (or maybe a little more powerful)?  What, according to the author, is "fun" (reminds me of the reading comprehension part of the SATs).  My answer - Waves of monsters, and a *fight that can go either way*
> 
> Well according to common sense (as I understand it), everyone is going to want to be at 100% effectiveness when the fight can go either way.  Also, it seems logically that you either have daily resources or you don't.  The rest of it is just connecting the dots.







  I think your making a number of leaps and assumptions here.

And I think what he means is, every encounter will be a "major" "fun" encounter, until you get to the point where you have to stop and rest. 

  Also I think you need to get past the idea that *all* they are doing is "replacing the crossbow with something equivalent or maybe a little more powerful." I'm pretty sure theres going to be more too it than that.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Rykion said:
			
		

> There hasn't been any problem with the houseruling.  We play a lot of RPGs, not just D&D/D20.  D&D is one of the most popular.  The players that like magic type characters seem to prefer systems with mana/magic points, or ones that have a mechanic that makes low power spells safe to cast all day, but powerful ones a gamble.



Ah, fair enough. Do you know offhand why they happen to prefer mage-types being that way?


----------



## Kerrick

> See, in 3e there's a basic assumption that an encounter between four 5th-level PCs and one CR 5 monster should drain away about 25% of the party's resources, which primarily translates into spells (and primarily the cleric's spells, which determine everyone else's total hit points).



And it's a flawed assumption. I don't know where they're getting this idea. Firstly, a CR 5 monster is an EL ~3 encounter. Secondly, I don't think a party would blow more than about 15-20% of their resources against an equal-EL encounter, unless things went really badly for them. 

I have to chime in on the side of folks like Sun Knight - if you're blowing all your spells in one or two encounters, maybe you should rethink how you're playing your PC, because realistically, that PC wouldn't survive very long. Wizards are supposedly smart - high Int, right? Clerics are wise. A wizard would look at the battle and say, "Should I cast a spell now (this round)? Or should I do something else? Should I just lean on my staff and watch the fighter hack the monster to bits and offer sardonic advice?" 

'But it's not FUN!" you cry. "The wizard's just standing around back there twiddling his thumbs while everyone else does the work!" Well DUH. He's a leader. He's a tactician. He's a controller. Call it what you will, he's _supposed_ to stand at the rear of the party (or in the middle). Our group had a skill called Knowledge (tactics) - you make a check, and you could offer advice to the other PCs that would gain them benefits - kind of like the teamwork feats from PHBII, but we've been using them for years. That's what someone with easily the highest Int in the party would (should) have. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with giving them AP Light and a single martial WP of choice - the sword-wielding melee mage is very common in literature. They'd still have low hp and BAB, so they're no threat to the fighter, but they can defend themselves and others.

Clerics and druids have the hit points and skills (armor and weapons) to mix it up with the enemies - they can serve as first- or second-line combatants. Bards? They're support. They aid their comrades by singing, and they have roguish abilities - they can use their bows as archery support, or sneak around and flank enemies for the fighters, _while singing_. Sorcerers? They're strictly artillery. Given the fact they have a larger number of spells than the wizard, it's unlikely they'd run out before the party needs to rest.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> I cant really understand why you would want some classes to have more and more effective resources than others. *different types of abilities and capabilites* yes.





How often you can use resources and how powerful those resources are _*is*_ a different type of ability, and it is essentially a _*more*_ different kind of ability than "everyone can do 1d6 per round; here's the fluff text for where your damage comes from".

If the differences in your abilities _perforce_ cause you to approach problems in different ways, then it should be self evident that the difference is greater than one which allows all classes to behave in essentially the same way in all cases.

If you really can't understand that, then I have no idea how I could explain it to you better.


RC


----------



## Merlion

> I have to chime in on the side of folks like Sun Knight - if you're blowing all your spells in one or two encounters, maybe you should rethink how you're playing your PC, because realistically, that PC wouldn't survive very long. Wizards are supposedly smart - high Int, right? Clerics are wise. A wizard would look at the battle and say, "Should I cast a spell now (this round)? Or should I do something else? Should I just lean on my staff and watch the fighter hack the monster to bits and offer sardonic advice?"





  So basically low level wizards should be restricted to casting one or maybe two spells per encounter. 

  try to remember just how few spells low level wizards have. And bear in mind also that especially if they want to have any utility/divination etc spells, thats going to mean less combat spells as well. And the Wizard really needs at least one or two defensive spells so he doesnt get completely smeared. 

  So a low level wizard is only going to end up with a very few actual combat spells. And once they are gone, as it stands, theres little he can actually do to take part in the combat. 

 It also depends on the intensity and specific nature of the encounters. But the changes, from what we hear, sound like they will reduce the need for a DM to worry if the wizard player is likely to be rendered useless by a single encounter..


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> So a low level wizard is only going to end up with a very few actual combat spells. And once they are gone, as it stands, theres little he can actually do to take part in the combat.





And, yet, for three (and a half) editions, this worked out pretty darn well.

Interestingly enough, the low level fighter in 3.5 ended up with very few skill points, so that when there's sneaking or trap discover/disarming or Knowledge tasks to perform, there's little he can do to actually take part.

Why not just make one class, with all the same abilities, and have "kits" that describe the fluff for those abilities differently?  That way everyone can contribute equally to all things.....


RC


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> I think your making a number of leaps and assumptions here.




Well, one poster's leap is another one's logical deduction I suppose.  Either 4E will have daily resources or it won't.  The principles of basic "true/false" logic are not going to be reinvented by 4E.  Most everything I've said I've tried to put an IF in front of.  

If I have a per-day resource in DnD, then it's logical to assume that that power/resource will be more significant than the "per-encounter" powers.  Furthermore, given that all classes currently have a "per-encounter" ability in 3E (even if it's just a crossbow or their bare hands), we already know how players treat encounters that tax only the "per-encounter" abilities of their PCs.  And that is, they don't take them seriously at all.

Or, take a hybrid system.  You can use a certain ability "per-encounter" but at a maximum of 4/day, for example.  If all classes are like that, then there would be IMO a very artificial ceiling where everyone has to go sleep after 4 encounters.  If the times/day varies among character classes, then you have the divide similar to the current fighter-wizard divide in 3E.  I really don't see how anything that anyone has proposed for 4E could possibly change the basic logic of resource management.  (Unless they're using magic to design DnD's magic system!    )


----------



## Rykion

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Ah, fair enough. Do you know offhand why they happen to prefer mage-types being that way?



I don't think they've ever read any Vance, and want mages that play more like most fiction.  Most other systems have a lot less record keeping involved, making it easier on GM and players.  The D&D magic system is about resource management.  Systems that have fatigue or dangerous spell failure usually have a random mechanic that makes easy spells safe, but high level magic _potentially_ dangerous.  This adds risk management and lets players try to push their luck when major spellcasting is needed.  In D&D they know exactly when their magic will fail.


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, yet, for three (and a half) editions, this worked out pretty darn well.




In your opinion. Personally, I've never found playing a first level wizard (or magic-user) to be much fun at all. For me, it was always just an exercise in marking time until I could get to higher levels and start having fun.


----------



## Treebore

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Ok.
> 
> So maybe you can explain to me how "can use magic a set number of times per encounter" emulates life less than "can use magic a set number of times per day" then.
> 
> Clearly, you prefer one over the other.
> 
> That's not the standard for life emulation last I checked.





My opinion is that since magic is totally fabricated (false) in the first place, however you want it to work is what makes it "real". The trick is to get everyone to accept the same "working hypothesis" for how magic is to work.


----------



## Dalberon

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, the low level fighter in 3.5 ended up with very few skill points, so that when there's sneaking or trap discover/disarming or Knowledge tasks to perform, there's little he can do to actually take part.




Combat is one of the few mechanical aspects that everyone is expected to participate in. Its one of the few instances in which the party pools their power together to accomplish an immediate goal (defeating the current enemy)....it is also the most common element in almost every single game.

The impression I get is that they are attempting to make combat (a core concept of the game) more enjoyable for a variety of classes and players of varying experience levels (as in familiarity to the game).


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> So a low level wizard is only going to end up with a very few actual combat spells. And once they are gone, as it stands, theres little he can actually do to take part in the combat.
> 
> It also depends on the intensity and specific nature of the encounters. But the changes, from what we hear, sound like they will reduce the need for a DM to worry if the wizard player is likely to be rendered useless by a single encounter..




But "useless" here is an exaggeration - and that exaggeration is the core of the issue.  Because no matter *what* you replace the wizard's crossbow with, once it falls below the threshold of a daily resource it will be considered "useless".

Right now, a DM could throw 4 kobolds at a party of 9th level adventurers and the wizard's crossbow would not be useless.  Why don't DMs do this?  Because they (and the players) ALREADY equate "per-encounter" abilities with weak.  4 kobolds against 9th level adventurers is not interesting because it doesn't not tax daily resources AND it does not represent a significant chance of death during the encounter.  The SAME TWO conditions apply to any encounter where PCs use only "per-encounter" abilities.

So you can change the basic numbers but you still wind up with the same problem.  Let's say in 3E my wizard has a single 4th level spell, and near unlimited crossbow bolts.  In 3E he would have a single 4th level spell and near unlimited 3rd level spells.

So in 4E the party encounters a bunch of greater kobolds.  The PCs assement of the situation is that they can defeat the enemy using 3rd level spells (near unlimited).  This costs nothing, and it doesn't challenge the "class A" abilities of the characters (ie. the 4th level spell) so it winds up feeling just like the 3E situation where the 9th level party is fighting regular kobolds, doesn't it?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> In your opinion. Personally, I've never found playing a first level wizard (or magic-user) to be much fun at all. For me, it was always just an exercise in marking time until I could get to higher levels and start having fun.





In my opinion, yes.

In the games that I ran, from Christmas day 1997 to present, in the opinion of many others as well.

If sales are any indication, in the opinion of a great many more than myself or those I personally know.

RC


----------



## Rakin

Aren't all 4E characters starting at the playing power of level 4 now anyway, I can't help to wonder if this could be used to eliminate those first 3 "bad mage" levels, without dropping the spells per day thing.

I wonder if you'll have to drink to get man..I mean spells in 4e?


----------



## broghammerj

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But many people--I'd even hazard a guess and say "most"--who choose to play a wizard do so because, well, they want to play a character that uses magic. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen even experienced players get that glazed-over look in their eyes when they realize that it's time for the wizard to break out the crossbow. (And not just because they're out of spells, either. Often, it's because it's become clear that a combat's not worth "wasting" magic on..




Taken this line of thinking to the extreme, why don't we just have all characters do 1d8 points of damage per round.  Your wizard calls it a magic missile and my fighter calls it a longsword.  Part of the reason I like being a wizard is resource management.  Yes, I realize that there will still be resource management.

The thing I don't like about the per encounter system is now my fighter can unleash his springing ninja, berserker rage, whirling dervish attack per combat.  I never really desired nor cared for the special maneuvers.  If I wanted to do that I would have entered up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A.


----------



## Celebrim

James Wyatt  said:
			
		

> See, in 3e there's a basic assumption that an encounter between four 5th-level PCs and one CR 5 monster should drain away about 25% of the party's resources, which primarily translates into spells (and primarily the cleric's spells, which determine everyone else's total hit points). What that actually means is that you get up the morning, then have three encounters in a row that don't reallly challenge you. It's the fourth one that tests your skill—that's where you figure out whether you've spent too much, or if you still have enough resources left to finish off that last encounter. Then you're done. So basically, three boring encounters before you get to one that's really life or death.




Mr. Wyatt is wrong about something critical here.  Player's that metagame the system like that don't attempt three encounters.  They just do one.  If they expend any resources at all, then they rest.  Afterall, why risk going into the next encounter missing 4 of your 60 hit points?  That 4 hit points could be the difference between life and death!  

This is true whether thier abilities are regained per encounter or per day.

The only difference aside from fluff (we rest 'a minute' and we rest 'a day' are both really no more than fluff and hand waving) is whether there is any risk in resting.  If resting takes a whole day, then there is a significant risk provided that the story has a time line and the enemy is ran proactively by the DM.  If resting takes a whole minute, then there is comparitively a much smaller risk.  You don't even have to set watch and try to avoid a night ambush.  You can just keep on pushing on.  After a rest, of course.  One that forces you to make no meaningful trade offs.

Alot of the pro-per-encounter types have made the argument have made the argument that 4e will be best of both worlds, in that some fraction of the player's resources will be per day so that there will be some resource management.  But this isn't really an answer.  Either they will do one encounter and rest a day to get thier full abilities back (no net change over what people are complaining about), or they will choose to push on with less than optimal resources (again, no net change), or they can't run out of useful resources at all in which case the distinction is meaningless.  I don't think many are yet arguing that the game would be better in the latter case, but I can't help but notice that the first two options are the same as what we have in 3rd edition.   

I still think that per encounter abilities aren't going to fix some people's problem with the metagame because they aren't addressing the core issues that cause the metagame.  It might make for more satisfying fluff though.


----------



## Treebore

Merlion said:
			
		

> You missed all the posts about suspension of disbelief and versimilitude apparently.
> 
> And it does affect gameplay. It means you have to decide wether to set a watch and who to do it. And it means you have to re prepare spells etc.





Yes, but in a "REAL" world you would really do all of that. So how does playing realistically destroy Verisimilitude?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Dalberon said:
			
		

> Combat is one of the few mechanical aspects that everyone is expected to participate in.




Not sure I agree here.  Explicitly not so in older editions, where having your low-level magic-user wade into combat was a certain ticket to making a new character.



> Its one of the few instances in which the party pools their power together to accomplish an immediate goal (defeating the current enemy)....




Not sure I agree here, either.  The party pools its power together even when they are not all in the same area, so long as they are each doing something to meet their common goal.  I guess you are using the word "immediate" here to preclude the many, many other times that the party pools power/resources to meet a goal.



> it is also the most common element in almost every single game.




Here we can agree.

But, I would add, the reason that combat in 3.X was so much less enjoyable than in previous editions for characters who are not combat-optimized is because it takes so bloody long.  In earlier editions, even if combat was the most common element, each class could easily get more than a chance to shine within a single play session.


RC


----------



## Treebore

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Interesting speculation.  Hopefully what appears in the books will be just as good.





I agree, he does have some good looking ideas there.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Rykion said:
			
		

> I don't think they've ever read any Vance, and want mages that play more like most fiction.  Most other systems have a lot less record keeping involved, making it easier on GM and players.  The D&D magic system is about resource management.  Systems that have fatigue or dangerous spell failure usually have a random mechanic that makes easy spells safe, but high level magic _potentially_ dangerous.  This adds risk management and lets players try to push their luck when major spellcasting is needed.  In D&D they know exactly when their magic will fail.



Quite so.

OK yes, I was playing devil's advocate. I'm not the greatest fan of Vancian magic in RPGs. But I'm not violently opposed to it, either. For example, in my (extensive) house rules, there is one class that uses it (the "Wizard", though renamed). All others use a variety of systems, better suited to the source(s) and/or methods associated with their archetypes (to my mind, anyway).

But this was one case where I felt that the "devil" was certainly in need of some serious legal representation (or inquiry, at least). Hence. . .


----------



## WhatGravitas

Kerrick said:
			
		

> Call it what you will, he's _supposed_ to stand at the rear of the party (or in the middle). Our group had a skill called Knowledge (tactics) - you make a check, and you could offer advice to the other PCs that would gain them benefits - kind of like the teamwork feats from PHBII, but we've been using them for years. That's what someone with easily the highest Int in the party would (should) have.



Sure, that would also be a very fun idea, I really like it, and I think that *is* a good solution, but as you've said, it's a house rule. If the new abilities of the new wizard can be altered to such a degree, I'd like it.

The "Wizard Strike" from the last playtest (pushing target back while doing minor damage) is something between the blaster and tactician, so they at least know of that direction.

But just give them some "every round"-shtick, even if it's a helpful, yet sardonic comment (helpful as in game influencing).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## broghammerj

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The only difference aside from fluff (we rest 'a minute' and we rest 'a day' are both really no more than fluff and hand waving) is whether there is any risk in resting.  If resting takes a whole day, then there is a significant risk provided that the story has a time line and the enemy is ran proactively by the DM.  If resting takes a whole minute, then there is comparitively a much smaller risk.  You don't even have to set watch and try to avoid a night ambush.  You can just keep on pushing on.




Your last line says it all...."You can just keep pushing on."  My question is with the per encounter system, players could keep pressing on in the dungeon for longer periods of time.  Is there anything in the new mechanic to account for this?  Part of the reason you had to camp in the dungeon is you had to physically sleep.  Are they going to work in a fatigue mechanic since players won't be doing all this resting?

I offer two perspectives.  I am a physician by trade.  I have stayed up for 36 consecutive hours without rest.  It completely incapacitates a person after a period of time.  Now take the physical activity of dungeoneering and combat.  I'll say it's similar to my 10 mile hike in Olympic National Park this weekend.  Do I need rest after this period?  I was pretty darn tired.  I couldn't imagine combining them together.

There has to be something to be said about suspending versimilitude if your not resting at night.  So if you please, I prefer to camp in the dungeon so to speak.


----------



## Victim

Kerrick said:
			
		

> And it's a flawed assumption. I don't know where they're getting this idea. Firstly, a CR 5 monster is an EL ~3 encounter. Secondly, I don't think a party would blow more than about 15-20% of their resources against an equal-EL encounter, unless things went really badly for them.
> 
> I have to chime in on the side of folks like Sun Knight - if you're blowing all your spells in one or two encounters, maybe you should rethink how you're playing your PC, because realistically, that PC wouldn't survive very long.




In my experience, at high levels the most important resource the character has is effective actions in combat.  Standing around is wasting another kind of resource, and in higher EL fights that resource is probably more important.

Some fights can allow for extremely precise use of spells, others demand considerably more casting action.  For instance, once upon a time, our group was attacking a dungeon filled with zombies.  We had a swashbuckler, a casting based druid (mainly summoned dire wolves, produce flame, and call lightning), a psychic warrior archer (who refused to use his melee weapon), and a psion.  Yeah, the psion was basically doing like 90% of our damage against the zombies, since the nature of the other character's attacks left them ineffective vs DR and undead.  Consequently, he burned PP at a mad rate.


----------



## Treebore

Scribble said:
			
		

> I don't think it's really a case of making the game "better." I think it's a case of making the game more in line with how things actually happen.
> 
> I've noticed in almost any game I've been in, whether as a player or a DM, the game flows like this:
> 
> Enter dungeon, fight a monster (or two) then as soon as the wizard or cleric is out of spells everyone stops and "camps."
> 
> No one is really willing to continue if there isn't any magical backup around.
> 
> So in a sense everything being per day, or per encounter, doesn't matter because it's easy to just "camp" whenever you need to restock.
> 
> Why not just ditch the ignored part?





Thats sort of my point. Why not just gloss over the "rest period" if that bothers your group? Why rewrite the whole system? Vancian magic is just as "realistic" as any other "magic system". I have tried a bunch of other systems and all they seem to do is make the Wizard even more powerful than ever. So I expect in 4E to see more "The wizard is sooo BROKEN!!!" threads now that they will be able to do "so much more" than ever before.

Plus I also assume they will be doing similiar with the other spellcasters, IE cleric and Druid, so guess what threads we'll be seeing a lot more of in 4E?

Oh well. Guess its good marketing to put out a system with a bunch of new flaws so that they can doa 4.5 edition or jump on to 5E all that much sooner. Makes much more (business) sense than overhauling the system you have years of play feedback with which to fine tune it. Can't reissue all of the book ideas all over again if you do that. To easy to retro fit such a system.


----------



## Dalberon

Treebore said:
			
		

> Thats sort of my point. Why not just gloss over the "rest period" if that bothers your group? Why rewrite the whole system? Vancian magic is just as "realistic" as any other "magic system". I have tried a bunch of other systems and all they seem to do is make the Wizard even more powerful than ever. So I expect in 4E to see more "The wizard is sooo BROKEN!!!" threads now that they will be able to do "so much more" than ever before.




I don't think it will be as shocking as most folks imagine it to be. If you look at the Warlock, you can see where they are 'tempering the metal' for people to get used to the idea of a spellcaster not locked into a rigid slot system. They even mentioned how much 4e influence some recent books have recieved (Bo9S). I would highly expect for future 3.5 books to carry similar influence.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

I know, for one, I welcome our new per-encounter masters.

Playing in a weekly game, currently at 16th level, and playing a front-line fighting cleric, I know that my character has two settings:

GODLIKE
and
run away!

I'm obsessive about layering redundant systems.  I have feats that mimic spells that mimic class abilities, I've got chained spell back-ups to more powerful spells.  I monitor resources with exacting precision.  If I use up X I know I have Y (which is only slightly less than X).

And then one Targeted Greater Dispel Magic Spell-Like Ability blows away my Death Ward and the five Kyuss Knight's all drop a 10d6 negative energy fireball on my teeth and do 200 damage and I'm dead.  

The problem comes with high level binary effects that require magic to bypass.  We've fought monsters with +50 Grapple Checks.  There's no way any character can ever succeed against that sort of check without Freedom of Movement.  So if we don't have FoM or we used FoM against the last SuperGrappler or we have to give FoM to everybody in the group we have to stop, right then, and rest.

For whatever reason, even with prep and careful selection and detailed management, we have 2-3 combats a day, probably more like 1-2.  Either we don't have enough of a mission-critical spell or we're forced to use it up every combat.  The creatures are optimized to deal with a 250hp barbarian and gets ahold of the cleric and rips her up so we have to use our Heals earlier than anticipated etc.

Something, lately, is always forcing us to go back to the rest period to get back spells.  Whatever reduces a reliance on spell slots sounds like a good idea to me.

--fje


----------



## Treebore

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Mr. Wyatt is wrong about something critical here.  Player's that metagame the system like that don't attempt three encounters.  They just do one.  If they expend any resources at all, then they rest.  Afterall, why risk going into the next encounter missing 4 of your 60 hit points?  That 4 hit points could be the difference between life and death!
> 
> This is true whether thier abilities are regained per encounter or per day.
> 
> The only difference aside from fluff (we rest 'a minute' and we rest 'a day' are both really no more than fluff and hand waving) is whether there is any risk in resting.  If resting takes a whole day, then there is a significant risk provided that the story has a time line and the enemy is ran proactively by the DM.  If resting takes a whole minute, then there is comparitively a much smaller risk.  You don't even have to set watch and try to avoid a night ambush.  You can just keep on pushing on.  After a rest, of course.  One that forces you to make no meaningful trade offs.
> 
> Alot of the pro-per-encounter types have made the argument have made the argument that 4e will be best of both worlds, in that some fraction of the player's resources will be per day so that there will be some resource management.  But this isn't really an answer.  Either they will do one encounter and rest a day to get thier full abilities back (no net change over what people are complaining about), or they will choose to push on with less than optimal resources (again, no net change), or they can't run out of useful resources at all in which case the distinction is meaningless.  I don't think many are yet arguing that the game would be better in the latter case, but I can't help but notice that the first two options are the same as what we have in 3rd edition.
> 
> I still think that per encounter abilities aren't going to fix some people's problem with the metagame because they aren't addressing the core issues that cause the metagame.  It might make for more satisfying fluff though.





Yea, thats a good "different way" of saying what I've been saying, essentially.


----------



## F4NBOY

broghammerj  said:
			
		

> Are they going to work in a fatigue mechanic since players won't be doing all this resting?




I don't think Hit Points will be "per encounter" so character will eventually need to rest.


----------



## broghammerj

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I don't think Hit Points will be "per encounter" so character will eventually need to rest.




I think of HP as my degree of injury or how near death my character may be.  People are throwing around the suspension of belief because they are resting in the dungeon.  By resting I am referring to the need to actually sleep which is very realistic.   However, I do agree that characters will need to eventually rest.


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If sales are any indication, in the opinion of a great many more than myself or those I personally know.




Just because people buy the game does not necessarily mean that they like everything about the game. You can't draw any conclusions about specific game elements from sales, only about the game as a whole. It's entirely possible that a large percentage of the people who bought previous editions of D&D think that playing a first level wizard sucks, too.


----------



## F4NBOY

broghammerj said:
			
		

> I think of HP as my degree of injury or how near death my character may be.  People are throwing around the suspension of belief because they are resting in the dungeon.  By resting I am referring to the need to actually sleep which is very realistic.   However, I do agree that characters will need to eventually rest.




If they don't sleep 8 hours per day they become fatigued.

What about the fact that fighter can swing a 12 lbs. Greataxe for 16 hours ininterruptly   
without getting tired? Doesn't that hurt verosimilitude?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> Just because people buy the game does not necessarily mean that they like everything about the game. You can't draw any conclusions about specific game elements from sales, only about the game as a whole. It's entirely possible that a large percentage of the people who bought previous editions of D&D think that playing a first level wizard sucks, too.




Sure, that's possible.  Hence the word "If" in my "If/Then" statement.

RC


----------



## Grog

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Alot of the pro-per-encounter types have made the argument have made the argument that 4e will be best of both worlds, in that some fraction of the player's resources will be per day so that there will be some resource management.  But this isn't really an answer.  Either they will do one encounter and rest a day to get thier full abilities back (no net change over what people are complaining about), or they will choose to push on with less than optimal resources (again, no net change),




Let me stop you right there. There will be a big net change, because the definition of what "less than optimal resources" means will change. If a wizard in 4E who uses all his per-day spells is at 80% power (a figure that's been mentioned before) thanks to the per-encounter spells he has, that's a big difference from 3E, where a wizard who uses all his per-day spells is at 5% power or so, if that (barring wands and such, which will probably exist in 4E as well).


----------



## Celebrim

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I know, for one, I welcome our new per-encounter masters....Something, lately, is always forcing us to go back to the rest period to get back spells.
> 
> --fje




You realize that you just described in exacting detail one of the reasons why the 'per-encounter' system is never going to work, right?

High level D&D post-3E has an annoying reliance on a large number of defences to be in place.  It's only a slight exagerration to say that you better have mind-blank, death ward, freedom of movement, appropriate energy resistance, find the path and have eaten a hero's feast or else you are toast.  Plus you need a couple of break enchantments and heals as back up for anything that might go wrong, to say nothing of a plethora of equipment (actually a resource but fortunately one that generally doesn't break).  Loose one of those things, and the smart party doesn't say, "Heh, we've only used 25% of our resources - let's keep pushing on."  No, the smart party assumes that as soon as they push on, it will be the one resource that they have a shortage in (whatever it is) that they will critically need.  Smart high level parties don't take risks.  That's how they got to be high level in the first place.  As soon as they expend any critical resource at all, they are going to go on the defensive.

Now, there are some changes which might help, but changing from a per day to a per encounter or (as is more likely) some mixture of both won't change that situation at at all.   In fact, its my opinion that much of what I've heard so far (number inflation, for example) actually reinforces the above.

So, go ahead and welcome your new 'per encounter' overlords.  New master, same as the old master, plus 50% more game imbalance and brokenness as the natural and predicatable result of completely redoing the system (which means 4.5 is just around the corner, in some form no matter what WotC says).


----------



## F4NBOY

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You realize that you just described in exacting detail one of the reasons why the 'per-encounter' system is never going to work, right?




They've been working pretty darn well in Iron Heroes for some years now. Kudos to Mike Mearls.


----------



## ruleslawyer

Celebrim said:
			
		

> SNIP



How does that follow, exactly?

Let's hypothesize that 4e will require that same array of abilities and defenses to be in place at high levels (my feeling is that it won't, or that those defenses will be changed to always-on powers, or something else entirely). Let's then hypothesize that you can replenish these abilities after an encounter is over. How, then, is this not the *ideal* way to fix the problem you're signaling? A party can stop, rest for 1-10 rounds, or a minute, or whatever restarts the "encounter" meter, renew its defenses, and press on. The party will never be missing any of its critical resources due to expenditure of that resource in a single encounter; it's only after the "uber-resources" (hp and awake time) have been expended that they'll need to rest. 

Or am I missing something?


----------



## Celebrim

Grog said:
			
		

> Let me stop you right there.




Grog.  We've fought this fight before.  You didn't listen to me then, and you aren't listening to me now.

Smart metagamers don't rest when they reach 80% or 50% or 25% of thier maximum resources.  They rest as soon as they drop below 100% of thier maximum resources.  If I'm metagaming in a vacuum (for example, assume a non-timed dungeon exploration without a proactive opponent, 'Descent into the Forgotten Catacombs' for example), I don't rest when I think I have to.  I rest after every encounter.  If I metagaming, I'm not motivated by whether it seems silly to rest after 5 minutes of actual adventuring.  I'm motivated by the desire to 'win'.  And the best strategy is to rest, even if I only lost 4 hit points.

This has been true for every addition of the game.  Earlier editions of the game fought against this with 'wandering encounters' and longer term survival resources (can't rest indefinately without an infinite food and water supply).  Current editions deemphacize wandering monsters as a metagame mechanic and look askance at the idea that players should do tedious bookkeeping like marking off rations, water, etc.  The natural result is that a formerly specific tactic is coming to have a more general application, especially against novice DMs who don't think to play monsters proactively when they are 'off stage'.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Celebrim said:
			
		

> This has been true for every addition of the game.  Earlier editions of the game fought against this with 'wandering encounters' and longer term survival resources (can't rest indefinately without an infinite food and water supply).  Current editions deemphacize wandering monsters as a metagame mechanic and look askance at the idea that players should do tedious bookkeeping like marking off rations, water, etc.  The natural result is that a formerly specific tactic is coming to have a more general application, especially against novice DMs who don't think to play monsters proactively when they are 'off stage'.




This only matters if you assume the rules are in place primarily to discourage extreme metagamers. They're not. They _can't_ be.

What the rules should do, primarily, is provide as much support as possible for people who choose to play the game as written. Nothing in the world can stop a determined metagamer except a DM who's not asleep at the switch, rules or no rules. The books should _advise_ novice DMs how to deal with this, but ultimately, it's in his hands.


----------



## Vigilance

SteveC said:
			
		

> I hope that you don't take this as an insult, because it isn't intended that way: if you don't read the source material for the game, and you don't get the importance of balance, you are really in no position to make arguments about how the wizard class should be designed.
> 
> The current D&D Wizard fails on the "emulates the genre" test, and it also fails at both high and low levels at the "is it balanced" test. It is better at both of those things than previous editions of the game to be sure, but there is still a lot that can be done. To me, those are two very good reasons to make further changes to the class. I don't know if the new wizard will be better in 4E, and I won't until I see it, but it sounds like they are working to address some problems that I see in the game. To me, that's a good thing
> 
> --Steve




Exactly.

The only fantasy fiction the current Wizard imitates is Jack Vance. It doesn't do most of the other systems Raven mentioned AT ALL.

It's not Tolkien magic, and it's DEFINITELY not Hyborian magic (which involves making deals with devils and taking drugs to cast spells, then hybernating while your mind recovers for months sometimes- sound like D&D to you?)

The Wizard class is also not well balanced at low levels (1-5) or high levels (16-20). 

So it really only emulates one fantasy author, and it's unbalanced half the character's lifespan. 

I see no reason not to try and improve on THAT.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

3.5 is not Badwrongfun.

4E is not Badwrongfun.

If those of you that like the system now want to stick with it, that's awesome!

Those that don't want to switch?  Awesome!

I'm not judgemental.  I know that parts of 3.5 do not work for me and do not work for my group.  That it looks like some of those parts will be changed in 4E sounds great to me!

I see the straw men.  The attacks against them, they do not impress.

--fje


----------



## Celebrim

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> How does that follow, exactly?




Without going back and writing an outline for everything I just posted, it is the natural assumption which falls out from the magic system implied by what's posted so far.  Namely, that 4e wizards will look like a combination of at will abiltiies (my guess is that this is mostly warlock like 'blast abilities'), per encounter abilities, and per day abilities.   We know this to be true from quotes that tell us a wizard that uses 'all of his spells per day' will still be at about 80% power.  

Thus, he'll be missing about 20% of his effectiveness.  At high levels, without an extraordinary revamping of the system in other areas, at least some of that effectiveness will be deemed to be 'critical'.  Thus, the smart party will, absent other factors, always choose to rest so as to never go into an encounter at less than 100%.   Since some of the Wizard's spells are still 'per day', this means resting for the day.



> Let's then hypothesize that you can replenish these abilities after an encounter is over.




Already previously covered in a post.  If you can replenish all of these abilities after an encounter is over, then resource management goes away completely.  I think it can be taken as a given that most players don't want resource management to leave the game completely.  Even the most ardent 'per encounter' supporter here isn't suggesting hit points should return to 100% after every encounter.  So everyone is assuming at least one critical resource will be deplenished by encounters.  We know for a fact that the 'uber-resources' aren't the only ones.  If the core classes are looting Bo9S, probably most classes are going to have a number of 'per day' abilities.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> So, how many people were clamouring for a mage to be able to do more all the time, *before* the relevant details of 4e were released? Or has 4e suddenly shown just about everyone (or perhaps, nearly everyone who is "vocal" in this forum, for example) something they didn't realise about the horrors of playing a mage in 3e, 2e, 1e, BECMI, B/X and OD&D (and the rest). . .?




Just to readdress this...

It's something that's bugged me, to a greater or lesser extend, since 1E. It's also something that I'd gotten so used to working around, I rarely thought of it any more. And had it not changed in 4E, I wouldn't have been horribly crushed, but I didn't _expect_ it to change in 4E.

That doesn't change the fact, now that I appear to be getting a system that solves many of the previous issues I had, without completely ditching resource management, that I'm quite excited to see it.


----------



## gizmo33

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Smart metagamers don't rest when they reach 80% or 50% or 25% of thier maximum resources.  They rest as soon as they drop below 100% of thier maximum resources.




IME metagaming has evil connotations.  IMO resting when you're below 100% resources in a potential life-or-death situation is what sensible people do IRL and in most stories.  It makes no sense, even entirely within character, to continue to press on in the "Catacombs of Mystery" when there is no compelling reason to do so unless you're playing Captain Ahab/insane.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

I think per-encounter is a good step, but I hope to see other changes.

I'd like to see the removal of binary Save Vs. Dead/Nerf abilities.

I'd like to see a flatter curve to HP distribution.  As it is, the High Con characters have High Hit Die classes while the Wizard has a lower Con and d4 hit die.  My cleric has twice the hit points of the wizard, and it means at 16th level play, any bruiser becomes a binary situation for the arcane caster.  I've got 2x the HP of the Wizard and the Fighter has 175% of the HP my Cleric has.  

--fje


----------



## gizmo33

Vigilance said:
			
		

> It's not Tolkien magic, and it's DEFINITELY not Hyborian magic (which involves making deals with devils and taking drugs to cast spells, then hybernating while your mind recovers for months sometimes- sound like D&D to you?)




To be fair, neither Tolkien or REH actually proposes a working magic system.  Nor do they tell their stories from the perspective of the spell caster as Vance does.  Why doesn't Gandalf blast the enemy with lightning every single round?  Why did he only do it on Weathertop?  I don't think Tolkien would have been able to easily duck these issues if his main character was a wizard (and perhaps he doesn't anyway).



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> The Wizard class is also not well balanced at low levels (1-5) or high levels (16-20).




Balancing, and the resource management issue IMO are two different things.  The original wizard design in 1E was stated as "you're really weak at low levels and really powerful at high levels".  I wouldn't be surprised if the legacies in the design continue this.  So I agree that fixing that would be cool.  But the resource management thing is addressing another problem entirely IMO.


----------



## Celebrim

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> This only matters if you assume the rules are in place primarily to discourage extreme metagamers. They're not. They _can't_ be.




That's what I've been saying all along.

Some of the flaws in 3rd edition have been do to attempts to write the rules such that players are protected from bad DMing.  I have no real idea at this point what the major flaws in 4e will be.  I am not principally arguing that 4e will be good or that it will be bad, although I have said that it doesn't principally seem to be designed to address my problems with 3rd and D&D in general.  I am principally arguing against the notion being advanced by so many 4e supporters that changes in the mechanics are intended to and will be able to protect all the players (DM's are players too!) from bad play.  

There might be good reasons for adopting a mechanic that let players rapidly replenish certain resources, but forcing players to string together long series of encounters so as to create better fluff (or what is someone's idea of better fluff) isn't it because it won't work.


----------



## Victim

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> The only fantasy fiction the current Wizard imitates is Jack Vance. It doesn't do most of the other systems Raven mentioned AT ALL.
> 
> It's not Tolkien magic, and it's DEFINITELY not Hyborian magic (which involves making deals with devils and taking drugs to cast spells, then hybernating while your mind recovers for months sometimes- sound like D&D to you?)
> 
> The Wizard class is also not well balanced at low levels (1-5) or high levels (16-20).
> 
> So it really only emulates one fantasy author, and it's unbalanced half the character's lifespan.
> 
> I see no reason not to try and improve on THAT.




Actually, it doesn't even do Vance.  Not even all of his Dying Earth stories use the same memorization magic (Rhialto stories didn't).  Plus, while extremely limited, DE prepped magic was pretty much guaranteed to succeed when used, which is unlike DnD magic.  Finally, if you can write a spell name in lower case, it's not Vancian.


----------



## F4NBOY

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Smart metagamers don't rest when they reach 80% or 50% or 25% of thier maximum resources.  They rest as soon as they drop below 100% of thier maximum resources.  If I'm metagaming in a vacuum (for example, assume a non-timed dungeon exploration without a proactive opponent, 'Descent into the Forgotten Catacombs' for example), I don't rest when I think I have to.  I rest after every encounter.  If I metagaming, I'm not motivated by whether it seems silly to rest after 5 minutes of actual adventuring.  I'm motivated by the desire to 'win'.  And the best strategy is to rest, even if I only lost 4 hit points.




That's not metagaming. That's just making obvious smart and reasonable choices. If the character can rest and become 100% after every encounter, why shouldn't he? It would be silly not doing it.
If that's mategaming, then what's the opposite of that? Roleplaying? If the "roleplayer" keeps going on even when he is with 50% of his resources, for the sakes of story and cinematics, than he is being a bad roleplayer, because his character and even himself would not do it IRL without a pretty good reason.


----------



## ruleslawyer

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Without going back and writing an outline for everything I just posted, it is the natural assumption which falls out from the magic system implied by what's posted so far.  Namely, that 4e wizards will look like a combination of at will abiltiies (my guess is that this is mostly warlock like 'blast abilities'), per encounter abilities, and per day abilities.   We know this to be true from quotes that tell us a wizard that uses 'all of his spells per day' will still be at about 80% power.
> 
> Thus, he'll be missing about 20% of his effectiveness.  At high levels, without an extraordinary revamping of the system in other areas, at least some of that effectiveness will be deemed to be 'critical'.  Thus, the smart party will, absent other factors, always choose to rest so as to never go into an encounter at less than 100%.   Since some of the Wizard's spells are still 'per day', this means resting for the day.



I guess that my issue is with the difference between "critical" abilities and "all" abilities. The entire point of making some abilities per day, at least in Monte Cook's view, was to limit the "big booms" to particular dramatic moments. Things like the stuff you mentioned are, in the game's current incarnation, essential (or _critical_) defenses or buffs. I highly doubt those will reside in the per-day category, and thus, unless you have a group of gamers that insists at being at 100% capacity even in non-critical areas, I don't see how per-encounter design fails at mitigating the "five minutes a day of adventuring time" problem.


----------



## Treebore

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> IME metagaming has evil connotations.  IMO resting when you're below 100% resources in a potential life-or-death situation is what sensible people do IRL and in most stories.  It makes no sense, even entirely within character, to continue to press on in the "Catacombs of Mystery" when there is no compelling reason to do so unless you're playing Captain Ahab/insane.





Yes, very true. That is verisimilitude.


----------



## Celebrim

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> IME metagaming has evil connotations.  IMO resting when you're below 100% resources in a potential life-or-death situation is what sensible people do IRL and in most stories.  It makes no sense, even entirely within character, to continue to press on in the "Catacombs of Mystery" when there is no compelling reason to do so unless you're playing Captain Ahab/insane.




Bingo.  

I certainly did not mean to imply that players only did this because of something negative.  Principally, they do it because it is tactically and often even strategically sound.  I only meant to imply that RPers aren't always motivated by the desire to play thier characters in the way that is most tactically sound.  Some players might push on out of a desire to create or recreate a certain sort of story even if it wasn't tactically the most sound decision.

What I think you are seeing here is different players hoping that you can create a set of utopian mechanics wherein those things that are most tactically sound are also the things which create the most interesting narratives.


----------



## Celebrim

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> That's not metagaming. That's just making obvious smart and reasonable choices. If the character can rest and become 100% after every encounter, why shouldn't he? It would be silly not doing it.
> If that's mategaming, then what's the opposite of that? Roleplaying? If the "roleplayer" keeps going on even when he is with 50% of his resources, for the sakes of story and cinematics, than he is being a bad roleplayer, because his character and even himself would not do it IRL without a pretty good reason.




Opposite implies a binary here.  I'm not at all implying that there is a binary.  There might be more than one alternative motivation.  

Do you see all these mentions of 'source material' when we get into this discussion?  Every time someone talks about 'per encounter' abilities, they start bringing up works of fantasy literature.  

Not all people you lump in the 'role playing' end of your arbitrary single axis description are motivated by a desire to play the character in a 'gritty', 'how does my character feel', role-playing as empathy exploration way.  Alot of 'roleplayers' are attempting to create or recreate a certain dramatic experience through the medium of role-playing.  That is to say, they don't want to be in a game where people do things as they would "do it IRL", but rather they want to be in a game where people do things as they would do it in the fiction of Tolkien or whoever fascinates them.  These players aren't motivated by either the thought, "What's the best way to win" or "How would this fiction character react if this fictional world was real?"  They are thinking, "What would Conan do?"


----------



## Grog

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Grog.  We've fought this fight before.  You didn't listen to me then, and you aren't listening to me now.
> 
> Smart metagamers don't rest when they reach 80% or 50% or 25% of thier maximum resources.  They rest as soon as they drop below 100% of thier maximum resources.




No, you're the one who's not listening to me.

I'm not talking about how often the party is _allowed_ to rest. That will obviously be the same in 4E as it is in 3E. I'm talking about how often the party is _required_ to rest. There's a difference.


----------



## gizmo33

Celebrim said:
			
		

> What I think you are seeing here is different players hoping that you can create a set of utopian mechanics wherein those things that are most tactically sound are also the things which create the most interesting narratives.




Yea, that's what I would hope for too.  The problem I have with some of things I've read is that people seem to be equating "interesting narrative" with how things are in the books.  And I think fantasy books do very little to explain how magic works.  Stories also don't have to deal with the fact that the protagonists are people other than the author that are trying to be successful at what they're doing, rather than doing whatever makes for an exciting story.

And IMO it's not bad roleplaying to try to be successful.  IME players usually define their character by what they want to achieve rather than how to achieve it.  That means the tactically sound options are the ones exercised by the vast majority of characters regardless of what their personality is.  It would take a pretty extreme character personality for a fighter to eschew weapons and armor for a dagger and loincloth for example.  The character of Captain Ahab is noted for his maniacal obsession and disregard for resource management - I don't really think that players should have to act that way in order to be good roleplayers.

(BTW - I'm not countering the things you're saying here, nor I wasn't disagreeing with you on your post, I was citing it for context because I had seen metagaming come up a number of times in the thread and I was concerned that the implication was "if you don't metagame, the situation fixes itself" which I thought was a non-answer if one does not consider sensible resource management to be metagaming.  AFAICT we're in agreement on this issue.)


----------



## Celebrim

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I guess that my issue is with the difference between "critical" abilities and "all" abilities. The entire point of making some abilities per day, at least in Monte Cook's view, was to limit the "big booms" to particular dramatic moments. Things like the stuff you mentioned are, in the game's current incarnation, essential (or _critical_) defenses or buffs. I highly doubt those will reside in the per-day category, and thus, unless you have a group of gamers that insists at being at 100% capacity even in non-critical areas, I don't see how per-encounter design fails at mitigating the "five minutes a day of adventuring time" problem.




You just said how it fails.  You wrote: "Things like the stuff you mentioned are, in the game's current incarnation, essential (or _critical_) defenses or buffs."

Fixing the problem involves changing that element of play.  If I change that element of play, then the problem goes away regardless of whether I remain with a 'per day' design.  If I don't change that element of play, then the problem doesn't go away even if I go to a per encounter design *unless* as I already mentioned you turn all resources into per encounter ones.  But that has its own problems.  

Look at it this way.  Imagine that they don't change "the stuff _ mentioned" and all that remains essential or critical defences.  Then you are essentially asking for is always on hero's feast, death ward, mind blank, freedom of movement and so forth.  You don't see how that won't carry its own problems which are at least as great as those you are trying to fix?  On the other hand, if I change the game where "the stuff  mentioned" is no longer critical, then a 'per encounter' system no longer is needed to fix the problem of resource management.

What I've yet to show (and attempt to show in this thread) is that the per encounter system carries a potential cost/risk which makes me skeptical of it.  All I'm trying to say at the moment is that it won't fix what most people who support it say that it will fix._


----------



## Celebrim

Grog said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about how often the party is _allowed_ to rest. That will obviously be the same in 4E as it is in 3E. I'm talking about how often the party is _required_ to rest. There's a difference.




Where in the quoted passage by me, or in any of my argument, did you see the words allowed or required?  So what makes you think I'm talking about either allowed or required?


----------



## gizmo33

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I don't see how per-encounter design fails at mitigating the "five minutes a day of adventuring time" problem.




I think it's clearly a consequence of the reasoning that Celebrim has outlined.  IF all you have are "per day", "per encounter", and "at will" abilities, then what does a challenging encounter look like in DnD?  It doesn't look like an encounter that requires nothing but "at will" abilities because those are of no consequence to use.  Think of those encounters in 3E right now that require only "at will" abilities from characters and have no effect on daily resources.  Those encounters are insignificant.

So in 4E, just like in 3E, only encounters that tap daily resources will be considered significant (as will those that pose an immediate risk of death/dismemberment - where dismemberment can be considered a kind of "daily resource" cost.)  Those types of encounters have a consequence that affects the rest of the adventure.  Therefore, daily resources (that 80% level) will probably quickly evolve into the threshold for resting.

SO - if a single encounter uses the daily resources of the party, then it probably was exciting.  But then the PCs are likely to rest.  If it doesn't use the daily resources, then it's probably insignificant.

Thus, AFAICT the "per-encounter" logically fails to mitigate the thing it's trying to solve.  The thing AFAICT that the "per-encounter" folks seem to be missing is that DnD already has "per-encounter" abilities for the character classes and that just simply causes the expectations to be revised.


----------



## F4NBOY

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That is to say, they don't want to be in a game where people do things as they would "do it IRL", but rather they want to be in a game where people do things as they would do it in the fiction of Tolkien or whoever fascinates them.  These players aren't motivated by either the thought, "What's the best way to win" or "How would this fiction character react if this fictional world was real?"  They are thinking, "What would Conan do?"




I'm sorry to give you bad news, but in Tolkien's works things happen that way because they are meant to happen that way, not because it would be cooler or more dramatic or cinematographic. Same as Conan, I've seen him "playing by the rules" more than any other.

If you give us a piece of fantasy work where the characters just keep going only for 
a "metagame"-cinematic reason, I'll probably show you nonsense actions that kill any trace of verosimilitude, break appart the whole experience and just make the movie/novel be considered cheesy.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vigilance said:
			
		

> The only fantasy fiction the current Wizard imitates is Jack Vance. It doesn't do most of the other systems Raven mentioned AT ALL.





Yet, it seems closer to the other systems Raven mentioned, in play effect, than what we've been told about 4e.  At least, IMHO.

If there is a spectrum, where Conan wizards are (say) 3, and Vancian wizards are (say) 10, then going to 20 doesn't seem to make things better to me.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Celebrim said:
			
		

> What I think you are seeing here is different players hoping that you can create a set of utopian mechanics wherein those things that are most tactically sound are also the things which create the most interesting narratives.




I very much doubt that'll happen, but that's what I see here also.

RC


----------



## Dalberon

Just a side note, but www.thesaurus.com is a wonderful resource. Color, credibility, genuineness, likeliness, likeness, plausibility, realism, resemblance, semblance, show, similarity are synonyms for verisimilitude. I think that poor word has been worn out in these forums....


----------



## broghammerj

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> If they don't sleep 8 hours per day they become fatigued.
> 
> What about the fact that fighter can swing a 12 lbs. Greataxe for 16 hours ininterruptly
> without getting tired? Doesn't that hurt verosimilitude?




I think that may be a bit extreme considering no one is in combat for 16 hours straight.  In fact most DND combats last only a few minutes of game time.  Considering that 3.5 is based on 4 encounters per day, I don't think it's all that crazy.   Besides I am simply using arguments by others regarding support for a per encounter mechanic.

Versimilitude flew out the window when I sat down to play a game with elves, dragons, and magic.  I think it's a weak arguement at best.


----------



## Rakin

So are the mobs in 4E just going to walk around aimlessly while the characters rest up after every fight?

Was this already addressed?

I mean no matter what you're doing, if you're in a dungeon and you're making noise, I think it's pretty obvious that after an encounter it won't be long till something else finds it's way toward your group, due to the noise of combat or whatever.

I hated in MMO's where after every encounter you all just sat around watching the mindless driods walk back and forth.

Or is there not going to be any downtime at all? You just assume that your character can and does fight non stop for hours on end. That's some great stamina!

Either way, blech.


----------



## Masquerade

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> What about the fact that fighter can swing a 12 lbs. Greataxe for 16 hours ininterruptly without getting tired? Doesn't that hurt verosimilitude?



This is the kind of situation which doesn't require a printed rule to govern. It's common sense that she can't swing the axe that long without getting tired.


----------



## Grog

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Where in the quoted passage by me, or in any of my argument, did you see the words allowed or required?  So what makes you think I'm talking about either allowed or required?




In your response to me, you talked about metagaming parties resting after every encounter. That pretty clearly deals with how often parties are allowed to rest. You even went so far as to mention wandering monsters as a way to reduce the frequency with which the party can rest.


----------



## Celebrim

F4NBOY said:
			
		

> I'm sorry to give you bad news, but in Tolkien's works things happen that way because they are meant to happen that way...




A full treatment of Tolkien's works, a discussion of his motivations for writing, his religion, and the concept of divine providence that he's trying to illustrate is well outside the scope of this thread.  

I will say that Tolkien would have gotten a real kick out of the lot of different uses you have for "I'm sorry to give you bad news..."  To think I would live be 'good morning'ed by someone named F4NBOY.  

So, anyway, you attack is a really weak one.  I refuse to get involved in picking nits with you about something as tangential as whether the 'good' non-cheesy works of fantasy fiction have tactical versimilitude, because sure as shooting someone is going to bring up dumb but seemingly smart questions like, "Why didn't they just use the eagles to fly the ring to Mordor?" and the whole thread will be derailed while I try to explain things to the people that just don't get it.

Boiling down your attack to its essentials, I don't think it requires a long complex proof to show that many RPGers are trying to create a dramatic quasi-literary experience when they play, and they judge how fun the session was in effect by how good of a story it makes in the telling of it.  If you question the truth of that then I doubt we can have a very productive conversation.  Given the number of people who complain about the 9:00 - 9:05 adventuring day, I'd say that alot of people are at least in part motivated by a desire to create a rip roaring good story.


----------



## Celebrim

Grog said:
			
		

> In your response to me, you talked about metagaming parties resting after every encounter. That pretty clearly deals with how often parties are allowed to rest.




I don't see how that follows.  



> You even went so far as to mention wandering monsters as a way to reduce the frequency with which the party can rest.




Which still doesn't get into the notions of allowed or required or similar 'restriction'/'permission' words like 'can'.  Wandering monsters do not allow or require anything.  Players choose to rest or not rest regardless of whether there are wandering monsters, and they can rest with or without them.  Like many other risks, the risk of wandering monsters may encouarage or influence certain player decisions, but they don't require anything.  However, verbs like 'encourage' and 'influence' are just so comparitively non-provocative and I can see why you'd want to avoid them.


----------



## Dacileva

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I *have* "read through" (and posted at) these and other forums - but not WotC's - for years now. In various subforums. At some stages, almost daily. Like lately, for example.
> 
> I *am* honestly willing to believe that those aggrieved masses slipped my attention somehow. All you need to do is prove it.




Here are a few examples:

From the D&D Rules forum here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=205560
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204596
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3703125&postcount=2 (3/4 the way down in the list)
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3706146&postcount=31
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2481916&postcount=1


From USENET:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/msg/7d1cbdea7beb7ada?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/msg/798d50130183e446?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/msg/f2e9d00c091ec504?dmode=source&hl=en

From the Wizards boards (more in this category since I can Search more easily there, and I believe these are all from completely different posters):
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=11697247&postcount=30 (hell, he even mentions a concept with three options: intrinsic spells at will, learned spells preparable or castable on the fly with more effort, and full prepared spells)
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=11687430&postcount=25
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=11687225&postcount=24
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12278408&postcount=6 (tongue-in-cheek comment about Vancian fighters)
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12372870&postcount=13
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12609445&postcount=1
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12615488&postcount=3
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12617960&postcount=6
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12648956&postcount=8
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12722156&postcount=1
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12979321&postcount=1 (per-encounter variant idea)
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13015241&postcount=1
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13265326&postcount=1
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13488193&postcount=13
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13545260&postcount=4
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13579357&postcount=1

Unearthed Arcana, specifically the spell "recharging" rules.  These were not created arbitrarily for no reason.

http://firkraag.wordpress.com/2006/09/30/alternative-magic-part-i/

-----

The upshot is that Vancian magic forces either the fifteen-minute adventuring day, or it forces pointless and boring "attrition" encounters.  These are both problems.

Getting rid of Vancian limitations, but keeping other limitations (such as a stronger emphasis on per-encounter limitations) means that every encounter can be interesting without forcing a fifteen-minute adventuring day.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, yet, for three (and a half) editions, this worked out pretty darn well.




No, it didn't, really.

I always *hated* playing the Wizard / Magic-User 1.

It wasn't fun until about 5th-level, or so.


----------



## ruleslawyer

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think it's clearly a consequence of the reasoning that Celebrim has outlined.  IF all you have are "per day", "per encounter", and "at will" abilities, then what does a challenging encounter look like in DnD?  It doesn't look like an encounter that requires nothing but "at will" abilities because those are of no consequence to use.  Think of those encounters in 3E right now that require only "at will" abilities from characters and have no effect on daily resources.  Those encounters are insignificant.
> 
> So in 4E, just like in 3E, only encounters that tap daily resources will be considered significant (as will those that pose an immediate risk of death/dismemberment - where dismemberment can be considered a kind of "daily resource" cost.)  Those types of encounters have a consequence that affects the rest of the adventure.  Therefore, daily resources (that 80% level) will probably quickly evolve into the threshold for resting.
> 
> SO - if a single encounter uses the daily resources of the party, then it probably was exciting.  But then the PCs are likely to rest.  If it doesn't use the daily resources, then it's probably insignificant.
> 
> Thus, AFAICT the "per-encounter" logically fails to mitigate the thing it's trying to solve.  The thing AFAICT that the "per-encounter" folks seem to be missing is that DnD already has "per-encounter" abilities for the character classes and that just simply causes the expectations to be revised.



Of course, the fix to this is to just ditch the per-day abilities.


----------



## Celebrim

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, it didn't, really.
> 
> I always *hated* playing the Wizard / Magic-User 1.
> 
> It wasn't fun until about 5th-level, or so.




I'd agree with that.  In fact, I'd say it didn't really start getting fun until 7th level or so when you were likely to get through most of the day without running out of spells.  About fifth was just the first level were you got a chance to really play a big role on the team.

I think 3rd fixed that to some extent, but it still quite admittedly has problems.

Let me do a full confession.  I always hated DMing low level wizards because they were so dull mechanically even in the hands of the better players, and because they are so fragile that its hard for me to avoid killing them.  (In 3rd edition, I got so notorious about killing off wizards that my players who wanted to be wizards took level 1 in fighter and the accompanying end game power loss just to be durable enough to survive.)  Whenever it  happened in long term campaigns that a player wanted to be a wizard, I confess that I've been cheating since about age 14.  I always borrowed a page from Dragonlance and either had the character start with or quickly find some highly useful magical device that let them play a bigger role right from the start.  I do it so often that I'm not going to mind if 'journeyman Wizard's apprenticeship gift inherited from his mentor' becomes a class feature.  Typically, it was a ring or staff that would increase the number of minor per day features that the class could do.  In modern terms, it would give the character say 3-6 more cantrips per day and maybe some other small bonuses.  At low levels this would give the character something to do and wouldn't matter at high levels.

So to a certain extent, I am comfortable with the notion of wizards killing the warlock and taking his stuff while losing some of thier phenomenal cosmic power at high levels.  If a 1st level wizard could do 'Ray of Frost' as a standard action, and 10th level one could fire a single 'Scorching Ray' as a standard action, I don't think its going to hurt and it might help the game.*  But I just don't see 'per encounter' balancing as the way to go here, because I can think of only a very small number of things for a wizard to do 'per encounter' that are interesting and mostly they don't involve spells per se.

*On the other hand, given how rapidly 3.X levelling is by default, such a system of 'at will blasts' is not very different than simply assuming that a Wizard will equip themselves with an affordable wand at all times.  I've never seen a 3.X edition wand actually run out of charges, unless it was a wand of CLWs or such.


----------



## Grog

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I don't see how that follows.




Do you want a recap of the whole conversation thus far?

You said "Per-encounter balancing will not change anything from 3E (unless 4E parties cannot run out of useful resources)."

I said "Yes it will, because parties will still be able to push on when most or all of their per-day resources are gone, thanks to the per-encounter abilities."

You said "But metagaming parties will still rest after every encounter."

I said "That's entirely beside the point."

I made a point about how often 4E parties will be required to rest vis a vis 3E parties, and you responded with a point about how 4E is not going to change the fact that metagaming parties can and will rest after every encounter. That looks an awful lot like a non-sequitur to me.


----------



## Celebrim

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Of course, the fix to this is to just ditch the per-day abilities.




Yes, but its a 'fix' that carries it's own large problems and of the two, I'd rather take the set of problems we have.

If every scene plays out like an episode of ST:tNG and the crew is left in the same state that they began the episode, I don't think I'm going to find the experience as intense as I have in the past.

Maybe its just because I'm a nerd boy, but I think fiddly resource management and such is and should be part of the game.  I realize that no modern RPG book would be written like the 1st edition DMG with its talk of the 'superior player' being the one that is faced with severe resource management challenges and overcomes them and all that sort of talk is out of fashion right now, but I really think that fiddly resource management produces not only a superior player but, in the right doses, produces superior play.


----------



## Celebrim

Grog said:
			
		

> Do you want a recap of the whole conversation thus far?




How about just recapping my first few sentenses when I laid out my thesis (#160).


----------



## Wormwood

Dacileva said:
			
		

> The upshot is that Vancian magic forces either the fifteen-minute adventuring day, or it forces pointless and boring "attrition" encounters.  These are both problems.
> 
> Getting rid of Vancian limitations, but keeping other limitations (such as a stronger emphasis on per-encounter limitations) means that every encounter can be interesting without forcing a fifteen-minute adventuring day.




If I could, I would make that my signature.

Hell, I may just have it tattooed somewhere. Somewhere _prominent._

Very well said.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Maybe its just because I'm a nerd boy, but I think fiddly resource management and such is and should be part of the game.  I realize that no modern RPG book would be written like the 1st edition DMG with its talk of the 'superior player' being the one that is faced with severe resource management challenges and overcomes them and all that sort of talk is out of fashion right now, but I really think that fiddly resource management produces not only a superior player but, in the right doses, produces superior play.




But you might be in the minority.  Which is fine!  

But I think NOT catering to the needs of a larger audience, not drawing more players, not making the game more fun and easier to play for MORE people ... would be a mistake.

Keeping Vancian magic because it is a Sacred Cow and how some people cut their teeth on the game, and because early editions encouraged people to feel superior to other players for learning and enjoying the system within the limits of the rules, just doesn't seem like good sense.

Because 1st ed is here.  So is 2nd.  3rd.  They're there and people who love that type of play have lots and lots of material to play with.  

In the end I imagine that when 4th comes out the resource management geeks will find new resources to manage and more things to be geeks about.  The guy that loves per-day abilities might find himself playing a Fighter for the first time, enjoying his Talent Tree choices that give him Per Day super-cool Fighter Mojo.  And it'll be great if you can focus on per-day more or less depending on talent trees.  I'm a proponent of option-based play.

--fje


----------



## Vigilance

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yet, it seems closer to the other systems Raven mentioned, in play effect, than what we've been told about 4e.  At least, IMHO.
> 
> If there is a spectrum, where Conan wizards are (say) 3, and Vancian wizards are (say) 10, then going to 20 doesn't seem to make things better to me.
> 
> 
> RC




Again, I can see not liking the new magic rules in 4e.

I'm reserving judgement till I see them in play myself.

Having limited power does not equal "I made a deal with a demon, got knowledge man was not meant to know, risked my soul and sanity to cast that spell-which took me years to get ready for, and the spell would only work on the winter solstice, then went into hybernation for a year to recover". 

That's much closer to Conan magic. It resembles D&D magic not even a little. D&D mages have a limited selection of spells that always work and impose very little penalties on the caster. Sure, you might lose some XP, or have to pay some money, but in Conan the penalty would more likely be permanent ability damage, sanity loss a la Cthulhu, and other nasty side effects.

And btw, Call of Cthulhu. THERE is a magic system that does a fair job of emuting Hyborian magic.

Sooooo... if 4e was adopting that, you'd be fine right? 

I doubt it. And of course, in emulating Hyborian magic, you're not emulating Tolkien magic even a little. 

I'm just confused as to why people feel the need to try and place their preferences on a higher plane than others because they've appealed to some authority, whether it be realism or genre emulation.

You CAN just say "I don't like what I've heard of these rules".

No really, you can.

The problem I have is people who try to make their preference seem more authoritative by saying Vancian magic has more reality emulation than other magic systems, or that Vancian magic somehow offers better genre emulation for fantasy novels than other systems.

You're stating your preference for magic to work the way it always has. But instead of leaving it at that, you then turn around and make totally specious appeals to authority. 

Vancian magic is wholly unrealistic. Just like D&D combat is wholly unrealistic. 

Vancian magic also doesn't represent any type of fantasy novel well except those written by Jack Vance.

Both of these are ok. 

Neither invalidates or validates anyone's opinion.

You can have a legitimate opinion without a false appeal to authority.


----------



## Grog

Celebrim said:
			
		

> How about just recapping my first few sentenses when I laid out my thesis (#160).




Well, if all you're saying is that 4E won't stop metagamers from doing their thing, all I can say in response to that is "Well, duh!" No rules change can stop metagaming - only the DM and the players can do that. I would have thought that was obvious.


----------



## FickleGM

It is important to me, because it allows me to continue throwing enemies at the party, that are fully "powered up," without having the players question why their enemies always have the full alotment of spells.

Either way, I will continue to not worry about NPC resource management, but with per-encounter abilities/spells, the party is playing on a more level playing field.


----------



## gizmo33

Dalberon said:
			
		

> Just a side note, but www.thesaurus.com is a wonderful resource. Color, credibility, genuineness, likeliness, likeness, plausibility, realism, resemblance, semblance, show, similarity are synonyms for verisimilitude. I think that poor word has been worn out in these forums....




We need a word that means "realism" in such a way that people don't respond with "well, dragons aren't 'real' so that means my fighter should be able to eat nails for breakfast".  A word that means something like "realism appropriate for a fantasy adventure game."  I use versimilitude until thesaurus.com would like to suggest one better.


----------



## gizmo33

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Of course, the fix to this is to just ditch the per-day abilities.




Exactly - when we're to the point that ditching them is the only possible alternative, then I have a few posts with what I disaster I think that would be.  As it stands, the logic in this thread can be a little slippery so it's easier to just deal with one issue at a time.  At this point I hope you can at least get a sense of what I think the problems are with the mixed "daily/encounter" design.


----------



## Vigilance

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> We need a word that means "realism" in such a way that people don't respond with "well, dragons aren't 'real' so that means my fighter should be able to eat nails for breakfast".  A word that means something like "realism appropriate for a fantasy adventure game."  I use versimilitude until thesaurus.com would like to suggest one better.




But again, of the two scenarios you suggest, "dragons being real" and "eating nails for breakfast", since neither has the slightest thing to do with verisimilitude, why use the word at all?

Why not just say "fighters eating nails for breakfast doesn't appeal to me"?


----------



## gizmo33

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Having limited power does not equal "I made a deal with a demon, got knowledge man was not meant to know, risked my soul and sanity to cast that spell-which took me years to get ready for, and the spell would only work on the winter solstice, then went into hybernation for a year to recover".
> 
> That's much closer to Conan magic. It resembles D&D magic not even a little.




That's debateable and a difficult thing to assess IMO and I would have thought you'd be a little more qualified in your statements (but then the internet is not a place for nuance).



			
				The Scarlet Citidel said:
			
		

> "There are creatures," said Pelias, "not alone of earth and sea, but of air and the far reaches of the sky as well, dwelling apart, unguessed of men.  Yet to him who holds the Master-words and Signs and the Knowledge underlying all, they are not malignant nor inaccessible.  Watch and fear not."




At which point Pelias summons a beast for Conan to ride on, with apparently no risk to soul or sanity (well, Pelias' anyway, Conan is a little creeped out by it).

Now isn't it possible that the "Master-words and Signs" this is just REH speak for "hey, when you're a 5th level wizard you can cast Summon Monster III.  Check this out..." ?  In any case there's nothing in Pelias' speech that indicates that there are such soul-destroying consequences to the spell casting.  But perhaps he's glossing it over.  There are other examples, such as hypnotism in "People of the Black Circle" where there appear to be no negative consequences to having learned or used the magic.  Maybe you can find examples to fit your case, but I think mine are sufficient to establish that it's a mixed, and perhaps inconsistent, picture.

So maybe REH is inconsistent in the way he represents magic?  Why not?  He's not writing about wizards in the main, he's writing about Conan.  As I said before, the weight that I give Vance over REH in this area is that Vance is actually telling you a story from a wizard's perspective, and so there has to be a higher level of versimilitude regarding magic use, and as such, I think it makes Vance a better source for a game about magic than REH.


----------



## gizmo33

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But again, of the two scenarios you suggest, "dragons being real" and "eating nails for breakfast", since neither has the slightest thing to do with verisimilitude, why use the word at all?
> 
> Why not just say "fighters eating nails for breakfast doesn't appeal to me"?




Because that's not what it's about.  And it DOES have the slightest thing to do with the definition of the word - why am I always into these "A is like B, A is not like B" arguments with people that don't apparently grasp that as the "extremeness" of their statements goes up, the likelihood of them being true goes down.

And here's how that works in this situation:  Plausibility is a close cousin of versimilitude (as in "slightest thing", you know).  Now plausibility is something that needs to be judged in context.  In this case "valid or exceptable" needs to be considered in light of the fact that we're talking about a fantasy adventure game.  A dragon, therefore, is plausible.  Calling something a "human" and then having it act (ie. eating nails) in ways that goes against the understood definition of that word, it not as plausible.  It is a matter of degree, which perhaps is to ambitious for me to establish on the internet.  But if you grant me that, then it's not a matter of me *not liking* the example about fighters.  It's about me not liking it *and, importantly,* me not finding it a comfortable fit for the understood definitions and themes.  Granted, there's some room for interpretation/opinion here, but I don't think it's as much of a free-for-all as you're implying.


----------



## Tyrion

Personally, I prefer most of my strategic decision-making to occur in the battle, and not before the battle. That means smaller prep times and more opportunities for clever, on-the-fly improvisation.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think it's clearly a consequence of the reasoning that Celebrim has outlined.  IF all you have are "per day", "per encounter", and "at will" abilities, then what does a challenging encounter look like in DnD?  It doesn't look like an encounter that requires nothing but "at will" abilities because those are of no consequence to use.  Think of those encounters in 3E right now that require only "at will" abilities from characters and have no effect on daily resources.  Those encounters are insignificant.




(3E encounter without power attrition -> boring 3E encounter) !-> (4E encounter without power attrition -> boring 4E encounter)


----------



## danzig138

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You see? When I'm playing D&D, be it as a player or a DM, the verisimilitude of the setting is one of the most important aspects to me.



It's also one of the most important aspects for me from both sides of the Wall. I don't fudge anything to deal with it. The assassins might not wait another day, and the group will just have to deal with it. The goblin horde might attack the beseiged town in 3 or 4 waves in a day, and the group will just have to deal with it. For me, the versimilitude (I hate spelling that word) requires that sometimes things will happen when they group isn't prepared for it. And they need to suck it up and deal with it (or run). 

What I'm reading from people in favors of these systems is basically "It's not fair if my character isn't primed and ready to go all the time." It's an attitude I find slightly distasteful. Part of the fun for me* is the fact that I might not be at peak when the fan gets hit. Hell, I might be in the middle of sleeping while Bob is on watch. 

Actually, let's see if this explains what I'm hearing more - I'll use a slightly more modern example. 

The PCs have been tasked with aiding a town in repelling bandits. The PCs have about 5 clips of ammo each for their guns. As the attacks rpogress, they're running low on ammo, they're having to think about how to repel the attacks, and if they can salavage anything during the off-time between the attacks. What I'm hearing from people is basically "My gun shouldn't run out of ammo." 

That said, I do think a different magic system could be better. With some hacking, tinkering, pounding, and pasting, I"ve found the EoM/Mythic Earth works alright (I was always a fan of the system from Realms of Magic). I _do not _ subscribe to the philosophy that every character should get to use his special abilities every encounter. Sometimes, things work in your favor, sometimes they don't. 



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Not for you, I realize. But the game isnt being designed for you.



Truth you speak bra'man. Of course, if everyone would just accept these, this forum wouldn't be nearly as much. . . fun. 


			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> I can understand "It will take me X minutes to rest/refocus/meditate/gather my chi" (which is how per-encounter works in IH/SWSE/Bo9S).



As I noted in another thread, if this is the route they go with, that's more palatable than what the term "per encounter" indicates, especially for maintaining versimilitude. But it still smacks of "I shouldn't run out of bullets!" 





*See how I noted "fun for me"? That's because I'm not willing to dictate what is and isn't fun in general, unlike so many people are jumping up to do (although I haven't seen you do so, so cool), including the designers.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Some of my most memorable D&D fights just wouldn't be as memorable with per encounter rules.

"Oh crap, there's Lord Strahd, I'm down half my hit points, the cleric is dead, and the wizard is almost out of spells.  We're screwed."

That encounter, wether it results in a tpk or not, will be remembered.  And if we win, it'll damn sure be, because we took a stand when the chips were down and won.  Nothing memorable about a walk off homerun.  Sure, it's nice, but 3 years from now, who will remember.  Kirk Gibson's shot, however, will be remembered forever.


----------



## Wormwood

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> "Oh crap, there's Lord Strahd, I'm down half my hit points, the cleric is dead, and the wizard is almost out of spells.  We're screwed."




Couldn't that exact quote be applied if Strahd delays his entrance until the _end _of a long and difficult encounter?


----------



## Treebore

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Couldn't that exact quote be applied if Strahd delays his entrance until the _end _of a long and difficult encounter?






SSSHHHHH!!! I'm running Ravenloft online in October for three groups! Don't give away one of his nastiest tactics!! Shame on you!!


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Actually, let's see if this explains what I'm hearing more - I'll use a slightly more modern example.




And I'll fix your example!  

The PCs have been tasked with aiding a town in repelling bandits. The PCs all have different weapons. Two have Berettas, which only have 9-round clips; those PCs can carry 5 clips at a time, but can get more from the ammo dump as often as they'd like.  One PC has an MP-5 with an extended, 100-round magazine.  He's only got one backup clip.  And you?  You have a bazooka.  And 1 shot.  And as many rocks as you want to pick up.

Who's going to have more fun in the ensuing gunfight?


----------



## Aus_Snow

Dacileva said:
			
		

> Here are a few examples: [. . .]



Uh, so in the EN World threads you linked to there. . . maybe three (four, tops?) individuals, out of the thousands of regular posters here. . . OK. And yeah, some were just talking about warlocks, in the sense that they are cool, but not necessarily any more cool than say, wizards. Er.

I don't generally regard Usenet and the WotC boards very highly. It's a bias, I know. But still. If there's anything really noteworthy there, let me know, OK? I will listen (i.e., read).




> Unearthed Arcana, specifically the spell "recharging" rules.  These were not created arbitrarily for no reason.



No, they were created specifically for the reason of catering to those DMs who might like to try those particular house rules / rules variants / call them what you will. Most D&D DMs and players probably don't even own or have access to UA. And of those who do, I suspect that the majority _don't_ use the recharging rules. So. . . um, yeah.




> The upshot is that Vancian magic forces either the fifteen-minute adventuring day, or it forces pointless and boring "attrition" encounters.  These are both problems.



So, a few posters in EN World's Rules forum, and a few more in this thread, possibly a smallish (but not doubt LOUD)  bunch on *cough* Usenet, and uh, Gleemax or whatever. . . hm. . .

It still looks like the "upshot" according to a rather vocal minority.




> Getting rid of Vancian limitations, but keeping other limitations (such as a stronger emphasis on per-encounter limitations) means that every encounter can be interesting without *forcing a fifteen-minute adventuring day.*



(emphasis mine)

This is entirely subjective. Many D&D players and DMs would completely disagree, as it so happens.


----------



## jasin

Rakin said:
			
		

> I mean no matter what you're doing, if you're in a dungeon and you're making noise, I think it's pretty obvious that after an encounter it won't be long till something else finds it's way toward your group, due to the noise of combat or whatever.



They better have some way of finding the entrance to the rope trick!


----------



## Stalker0

A lot of focus seems to be on the pc side of this, but in a lot of ways its better for dms/npcs as well.

Pcs in 3e have to conserve resources, npc do not. Which creates the scenario where the npc wizard will go nova to destroy the party because for him there's nothing to lose. The system is designed where wizards spend X% resources, but when npc are tossing 100% the balance is off.

In an encounter based system, both npcs and pcs are throwing out the guns.


----------



## hong

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Uh, so in the EN World threads you linked to there. . . maybe three (four, tops?) individuals, out of the thousands of regular posters here. . . OK. And yeah, some were just talking about warlocks, in the sense that they are cool, but not necessarily any more cool than say, wizards. Er.
> 
> I don't generally regard Usenet and the WotC boards very highly. It's a bias, I know. But still. If there's anything really noteworthy there, let me know, OK? I will listen (i.e., read).
> 
> 
> No, they were created specifically for the reason of catering to those DMs who might like to try those particular house rules / rules variants / call them what you will. Most D&D DMs and players probably don't even own or have access to UA. And of those who do, I suspect that the majority _don't_ use the recharging rules. So. . . um, yeah.
> 
> 
> So, a few posters in EN World's Rules forum, and a few more in this thread, possibly a smallish (but not doubt LOUD)  bunch on *cough* Usenet, and uh, Gleemax or whatever. . . hm. . .
> 
> It still looks like the "upshot" according to a rather vocal minority.




In which case, please post evidence for the existence of the majority.


----------



## jasin

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Actually, let's see if this explains what I'm hearing more - I'll use a slightly more modern example.
> 
> The PCs have been tasked with aiding a town in repelling bandits. The PCs have about 5 clips of ammo each for their guns. As the attacks rpogress, they're running low on ammo, they're having to think about how to repel the attacks, and if they can salavage anything during the off-time between the attacks. What I'm hearing from people is basically "My gun shouldn't run out of ammo."



An alternate look: the PCs are a SWAT team who have been tasked with assaulting a criminal hideout. They storm the first room in a short but vicious fight with tear gas and flashbang grenades thrown around like there's no tomorrow, because the criminals are so well prepared that this could be essential to victory. With the first room clear, the team catches their breath in front of the next door and someone says "Um... I'm out of ammo. And no more grenades either. I think we should head back to HQ to resupply. Hey, I know, maybe we should bring more than one clip and one grenade each, so we can reload in the field, between fights?"

The truth is somewhere in between, but it's certainly not as simple and one-sided as "per encounter supporters just want a gun of endless ammo on autopilot".


----------



## Aus_Snow

hong said:
			
		

> In which case, please post evidence for the existence of the majority.



I have.


----------



## hong

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I have.



 No you haven't. Please post evidence for the existence of the majority.


----------



## Aus_Snow

hong said:
			
		

> No you haven't.



Yes, in fact, I have.


----------



## hong

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Yes, in fact, I have.



 No, in fact, you haven't. Please post evidence for the existence of the majority.


----------



## Aus_Snow

hong said:
			
		

> No, in fact, you haven't.



Ah, fun. 

Well. . . funny, at least.


----------



## jasin

We missed you, hong.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

To me it mostly has to do with the fact that the groups I've played with want to get to the end of the "mission" whatever that may be(stop the cultists from destroying the world, save the mayors daughter, find the magic artifact, etc).

They will continue to seek this goal for a short while before they will give up due to being underpowered.

Assuming the formula in the DMG works the way it is supposed to, each encounter of CR=the average party level should use up 25% of the resources of the party(It never works out exactly that way, but lets assume it's true).  What I've found is that a party is willing to go into a fight with maybe 50% of their resources, but any less than that and they wisely head back to rest.

If they fight a hard battle right away, they'll rest right after it.  If they fight a lot of easy encounters in a row, they'll turn back after 5 or 6 encounters.  The idea of the new system is that 80% of their resources is still enough that they aren't afraid to continue.

Sure, they aren't full, but do they want to risk the enemies raising their dead or hiring and summoning new guards while they are resting?  Do they want to risk the fact that the kidnapped woman might be killed tonight?  The answer, in most cases, is no.  They'll push on with 80% resources.

On the other hand, I've seen groups not care whatsoever about the plot at all as soon as there is a serious risk of their own deaths:  "I know that the evil cult kidnapped the woman and we heard they were going to sacrifice her.  But we don't know WHEN they are going to sacrifice her, right?  So it COULD be next week just as easily as today, right?  And, we're all out of ALL our cure spells and the wizard has only 2 spells left.  Frankly, I don't think we'll survive anyways.  Let's rest for the night and hope she isn't dead when we get there."

My players don't WANT to metagame...but they'll do it when the system forces them to.  They'd much rather their character be the heroes and press on, even in the face of danger...it's just that at a certain point the danger becomes so great they RELY on metagaming to get them through("The DM won't have them kill her tonight, since he put us up against so many hard encounters in a row, he must have expected us to rest the night before saving her").

I see nothing wrong with each encounter being one that could go either way and the PCs having the ability to fight 20 of them in the same day.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So first of all, why is he talking about "25% resources" and stuff if all he wants to do is replace the crossbow with something equivalent (or maybe a little more powerful)?  What, according to the author, is "fun" (reminds me of the reading comprehension part of the SATs).  My answer - Waves of monsters, and a *fight that can go either way*
> 
> Well according to common sense (as I understand it), everyone is going to want to be at 100% effectiveness when the fight can go either way.  Also, it seems logically that you either have daily resources or you don't.  The rest of it is just connecting the dots.



I don't think the at will abilities will be anything like "just a crossbow".  I believe they will be closer to what the reserve feats look like now.  Where you can do 5d6 damage to a 5ft radius if you can cast 5th level spells.  You get to keep your shtick(casting area of effect spells) without being overly powerful(you could have cast fireball, doing 9d6 damage to a 20 ft radius by using your good spell).  However, it never drops to the level of "I have a 20% chance of doing 1d8 damage this round".  You also aren't likely outdamaging the fighters or rogues when they do their thing.

"The fighter could go either way" fights are normally depend on decisions rather than resources.  For instance, you know the enemy does 50 damage a round when attacking your fighter.  The fighter has 30 hit points left.  Do you attack hoping that you do enough damage to kill the enemy this round, preventing the fighter from dying?  Or do you cast that healing spell on the fighter for 30 hit points to keep him up just ONE more round in the hopes that you can beat the enemy next round?

That battle is close.  It COULD go either way.  It would be nice if you had your once a day ability to hit the enemy AND heal the fighter at the same time but you can win the battle without it.

And I think most parties aren't going to worry about the different in power they have between 80% and 100% if it makes more sense in character for them to keep going.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, it didn't, really.
> 
> I always *hated* playing the Wizard / Magic-User 1.
> 
> It wasn't fun until about 5th-level, or so.





Again, it worked for me, and it worked for those I played with.  Of course, that might just be a difference in game focus happening there.

In my own house rules, I did include the means for magicians to store unused spell slots (so that if you didn't adventure for a week, you could potentially store the energy in your staff and cast spells memorized using that energy instead of the energy "bound" in memorization).  It still limits you to the spells you have memorized, and allows for no more spellcasting _overall_, but allows you to plan your resources better, so that downtime becomes the means to store power for adventuring.  It is also not unlimited.  And I had to nerf quite a few spells to avoid them becoming runaways under such a system!    

So, I recognize that more ability to use your spells to better effect would be a good thing, and if the per encounter abilities worked somewhat akin to that, I would be happy.  I just think that the Vancian system has outperformed all competitors up to this point.

It is the speculation, considering all that could go wrong or right, that really bothers me.    

RC


----------



## Jedi_Solo

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Yes, in fact, I have.




I must have missed it then.

I have seen Dacileva post evidence that there are some people who do not enjoy playing a low level wizard because of the lack of spells.

I have seen you outright dismiss some of the posts (WotC and Usenet) and say that other sources aren't worth considering (UA) but I have seen no evidence that these should be dismissed outright as they have been.  I am more than willing to listen to both sides of the arguement but I've only seen one side (on if these posts are evidence of a 'problem' or not).

You are correct that a lot fewer posters have voiced a complaint about the low level wizard "issue" than are regular posters on the board.  You do make a good point in that the number of posters voicing the complaint should be taken into account because one (and only one) loud voice proclaiming there is a problem doesn't mean there really is one (doesn't mean there isn't as well - the sky may in fact be falling; but I will fully agree it's easier to take the issue seriously if 100 people are saying it rather than just one).

On the issue of the lack of posters complaining you can add one more poster to the complaint list - me.  I hate playing low level wizards.  A couple magic missles and a few Rays of Frost and I'm done for the day while we still have a couple more fights (my DM likes time constarints on missions).  So... yeah... I dole out the spells so I have some left.  I pull out a ranged weapon and try to roll well to conserve power but here I am being punished for doing what I am supposed to do (I'm supposed to be a spell caster and if I cast spells then I can't cast spells later).

Sign me up at around level 5 or 6 - where it is no longer a question of 'should I cast a spell so I can be effective later' but instead is 'what spell should I cast so I can be effective later'.

Why haven't I complained about this sooner?  Two reasons...  I lurked here for years but only signed up last year so I haven't given myself a lot of time to complain about it.  As for complaining after I joined others have complained for me.  I don't like posting a "Me Too!" message so there was no point until now.

So... Me Too!


----------



## Dacileva

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Uh, so in the EN World threads you linked to there. . . maybe three (four, tops?) individuals, out of the thousands of regular posters here. . .



You asked for evidence that there were objections.

I provided that evidence.

I also didn't feel like sifting through several thousand pages of posts, so I grabbed a few *standout* posts I saw, just from *skimming*, jumping by ten to a hundred pages at a time.



> OK. And yeah, some were just talking about warlocks, in the sense that they are cool, but not necessarily any more cool than say, wizards. Er.



The warlock exists as an alternative to Vancian spellcasting.  Did you read how many of those posts said things like "I hate the Vancian spellcasting system, so the warlock is great!"?



> I don't generally regard Usenet and the WotC boards very highly. It's a bias, I know. But still. If there's anything really noteworthy there, let me know, OK? I will listen (i.e., read).



If they weren't noteworthy, I wouldn't have posted them as evidence.

And you'd be surprised how many well-regarded posters here are just as well-regarded on USENET.



> No, they were created specifically for the reason of catering to those DMs who might like to try those particular house rules / rules variants / call them what you will.



Why does *ANY* variant exist?  Because the original is either too limited, or too restrictive.

From the introduction to Recharge Magic, the phrase "players... no longer have to face the disappointment of a retreat to town just when they’re on the cusp of the adventure’s climax" jumps out at me.



> Most D&D DMs and players probably don't even own or have access to UA.



Everyone who can access a computer has access to UA.  It's OGL.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm



> So, a few posters in EN World's Rules forum, and a few more in this thread, possibly a smallish (but not doubt LOUD)  bunch on *cough* Usenet, and uh, Gleemax or whatever. . . hm. . .
> 
> It still looks like the "upshot" according to a rather vocal minority.



I expected this, when I considered whether to post or not.

You said:


> Anyway, regarding these masses of long-suffering arcane-class players, would you be so kind as to provide some sort of evidence (e.g., links) to back those claims of yours up with?
> 
> I'm even open to some anecdotal. . . "evidence". Anything, really.




I've provided what you asked for (some sort of evidence (e.g. links)).  How you deal with that information is entirely your choice.



> This is entirely subjective. Many D&D players and DMs would completely disagree, as it so happens.



Explain how Vancian spellcasting does not cause either:
1) Attrition encounters; or
2) The 15-minute adventuring day.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think fiddly resource management and such is and should be part of the game.  I realize that no modern RPG book would be written like the 1st edition DMG with its talk of the 'superior player' being the one that is faced with severe resource management challenges and overcomes them and all that sort of talk is out of fashion right now, but I really think that fiddly resource management produces not only a superior player but, in the right doses, produces superior play.





Seconded.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Having limited power does not equal "I made a deal with a demon, got knowledge man was not meant to know, risked my soul and sanity to cast that spell-which took me years to get ready for, and the spell would only work on the winter solstice, then went into hybernation for a year to recover".




No, but then again that's not an adequate description of Conan magic, where in many cases recovery doesn't require years of hibernation either.  You are using the specifics of example characters, then extrapolating their problems as weaknesses as being part of the overall usage of magic in the Hyborian age.  However, if you read the Howard stories, you will know that this is simply not so.  Instead, some sorcerers gain additional powers through extraordinary means, which exact prices.  

This is actually something that can be modelled fairly easily with the 3.X Vancian magic and feat system, if you just write a few extra feats.  You can do it under earlier editions by making special rulings to represent the "deal with demons" required (and, if you look at the Gygaxian demon lore, one gets the impression that this was part of his campaigns).  Of course, earlier editions included spells that imposed far greater penalties on the caster as well.  Let us, for example, discuss how Haste has changed through the editions......   



> And btw, Call of Cthulhu. THERE is a magic system that does a fair job of emuting Hyborian magic.
> 
> Sooooo... if 4e was adopting that, you'd be fine right?




Yes.  Yes, I would.  My house rules for magic borrow heavily from Cthulhu d20.      The UA incantations seem to me to be a step in that direction as well, and I think they're a brilliant addition to the game.



> I'm just confused as to why people feel the need to try and place their preferences on a higher plane than others because they've appealed to some authority, whether it be realism or genre emulation.




You miss the point, and thus your confusion.  I don't appeal to authority to place my preferences "on a higher plane"; I am attempting to create a world that feels as though it could be a fictional world, and thus desire rules that aid me in doing so.

By accusing me (and others?) of attempting to "appeal to authority" you are dismissing the actual reasoning behind my (our?) statements.  A system that rewards players for using their characters in such a way as to more closely resemble their classical fictional counterparts is better, IMHO, than one in which they are rewarded for more closely resembling their Hogwarts counterparts, because (and only because) I am interested in a game that emulates classical fiction rather than Harry Potter (or whathaveyou).

I know, from long experience, that I can make the game fun.  Hence, my question is no longer "What will make the game fun?"  The question for me is only, what system does this better?

It is also a tangential concern of mine that any system that focuses primarily on what you can do during combat (i.e., all your cool class powers are combat powers), is going to, per force, reward players for engaging in more combat.  Older editions (including 3.x, especially if you include 3rd party sources) included many powers whose primary use occurred outside of combat, meaning that an adventure designed to allow everyone to "shine" had to include a wider variety of activities.  I do not want this to disappear because every class is optomized for combat.

In my home campaign, I run a sandbox, which means that each player is allowed to seek out whatever it is that he or she optomized his or her character for.  If every character is combat-oriented, then, as the players realize this, the depth of game play would shrink to the size of a battlefield.

Of course, I _know_ that we don't know enough about 4e yet to know whether or not such speculation is even close to the mark.  What I also know, however, is that the 4e design staff _reads these boards_, and that by airing my concerns before 4e is launched I stand the best chance of seeing those concerned addressed within the released system itself.

Hence, my posting on this topic.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But again, of the two scenarios you suggest, "dragons being real" and "eating nails for breakfast", since neither has the slightest thing to do with verisimilitude, why use the word at all?
> 
> Why not just say "fighters eating nails for breakfast doesn't appeal to me"?





Apparently, "verisimilitude" is the new wrongbadfun term, since pokemounts and MagicMarts apparently won't be part of the 4e experience.....


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> In which case, please post evidence for the existence of the majority.




If Aus-Snow had said "The majority have always supported Vancian magic" then asking for evidence of the existence of said majority would be worthwhile.  However, he said that, prior to the announcement of 4e, there had been no massive call for the end of Vancian magic.

This is exactly the same as my saying "unicorns don't exist".

If you can demonstrate that such a call had existed, then you can prove him wrong.  Just as, if you could show me a unicorn, you could prove me wrong.

However, asking me to post evidence for the non-existence of unicorns.........  


RC


(EDIT:  Of course, if you believed that unicorns don't exist, and I was trying to change your belief, rather than merely stating mine, you would be right to ask for evidence.)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Apparently, "verisimilitude" is the new wrongbadfun term, since pokemounts and MagicMarts apparently won't be part of the 4e experience.....



I don't see any problem with the verisimilitude of PokeMounts and Magic Marts.  Both seem likely in a world with magic.  I'd want to protect my horse from danger and summon him whenever I needed him and to sell any magic items I find on adventures and buy new ones.

I just don't like the verisimilitude of "I cast my fireballs for today.  Let's wait until tomorrow to rescue the princess.  I'm sure she'll hold on.  Better to do that then have to face the evil wizard without them."


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> (3E encounter without power attrition -> boring 3E encounter) !-> (4E encounter without power attrition -> boring 4E encounter)




At first I thought this was really deep, but now I think I understand what the symbols mean and I think I was wrong.  In any case, I think I have the general idea.  Something like this:

use of symbols !-> reasoning

I think what 3E and 4E would have in common is that they're both FRPGs and as far as I could tell they would have the same scope of things being interesting.  A 20th level character (or the 4E equivalent) fighting a kobold (or the 4E equivalent) would be a boring battle in either system.  The thing that makes such a battle boring (no impact on resources, no chance of death/harm to the PC) wouldn't change in 4E.  Of course we're missing the complete information, but this is what it seems like so far with what they've said.

I'll assume a response of "No.  You -> Wrong" but will look forward to any speculation/insights about 4E that would address what I'm saying.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If Aus-Snow had said "The majority have always supported Vancian magic" then asking for evidence of the existence of said majority would be worthwhile.  However, he said that, prior to the announcement of 4e, there had been no massive call for the end of Vancian magic.
> 
> This is exactly the same as my saying "unicorns don't exist".
> 
> If you can demonstrate that such a call had existed, then you can prove him wrong.  Just as, if you could show me a unicorn, you could prove me wrong.
> 
> However, asking me to post evidence for the non-existence of unicorns.........




Tell me why I should care about the bald statement "I believe in X", shorn of any overall context of the discussion of X.



> (EDIT:  Of course, if you believed that unicorns don't exist, and I was trying to change your belief, rather than merely stating mine, you would be right to ask for evidence.)




In which case, I would like to state my belief that my left big toe hurts from where I just stubbed it.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> At first I thought this was really deep, but now I think I understand what the symbols mean and I think I was wrong.  In any case, I think I have the general idea.  Something like this:
> 
> use of symbols !-> reasoning




No. Use of symbols != polysyllabication.



> I think what 3E and 4E would have in common is that they're both FRPGs and as far as I could tell they would have the same scope of things being interesting.  A 20th level character (or the 4E equivalent) fighting a kobold (or the 4E equivalent) would be a boring battle in either system.




Extrapolation to extremes -> strawman



> The thing that makes such a battle boring (no impact on resources, no chance of death/harm to the PC) wouldn't change in 4E.




Insertion of previously unseen clause.



> Of course we're missing the complete information, but this is what it seems like so far with what they've said.




Equivocation.



> I'll assume a response of "No.  You -> Wrong" but will look forward to any speculation/insights about 4E that would address what I'm saying.




No. You -> wrong.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Dacileva said:
			
		

> You asked for evidence that there were objections.



No, I asked (someone else) specifically for evidence of the "masses" of people professing such objections. It seemed to me, from your last post, that you (who decided to attempt to provide evidence on behalf of another) could not provide this.




> I provided that evidence.
> 
> I also didn't feel like sifting through several thousand pages of posts, so I grabbed a few *standout* posts I saw, just from *skimming*, jumping by ten to a hundred pages at a time.



This is not something you mentioned (that you were "sifting through several thousand pages of posts") before - presumably, you mean "thousands of completely relevant posts". . .? You presented it as evidence, I assumed it was such - as in, without any reason to assume that you were picking from among so *many* possible posts. Now I know that, I'll have to do some searching myself, just to try and gauge what these numbers are like, as best I am able.




> And you'd be surprised how many well-regarded posters here are just as well-regarded on USENET.



Fair enough. What suits one might not suit another. I get that.




> Why does *ANY* variant exist?  Because the original is either too limited, or too restrictive.



Not really. It exists because someone made it. And someone made it because. . . well, there is an infinite variety of reasons why someone might choose to do that. Or just astoundingly many reasons, perhaps. Either way.




> From the introduction to Recharge Magic, the phrase "players... no longer have to face the disappointment of a retreat to town just when they’re on the cusp of the adventure’s climax" jumps out at me.



Well, why wouldn't an RPG writer put whatever it is they're presenting in a positive light? I've seen writers do that, from just about any game company, for just about any book. It doesn't always mean a great deal. OK, it _might_. But yeah, it equally might _not_.




> Everyone who can access a computer has access to UA.  It's OGL.
> 
> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm



Oh, quite true. It's amazing how often regular web-visitors (and forum-posters) ask for some d20 answers, and I (or someone else) points them to that very site, which they have - clearly - never heard of. And that is among those who bother to spend their time on online forums and so on.




> I expected this, when I considered whether to post or not.



Your prescience was foreseen. 




> I've provided what you asked for (some sort of evidence (e.g. links)). How you deal with that information is entirely your choice.



Well, that's true. Thanks for providing those links, either way.




> Explain how Vancian spellcasting does not cause either:
> 1) Attrition encounters; or
> 2) The 15-minute adventuring day.



Not all people play the game the same way. Simple as that.

I haven't seen (or encouraged/discouraged) those things - well, apart from the odd attrition encounter, actually - in games I've run, featuring at least _some_ Vancian spellcasting. 

And as a player, it ain't that way, either. Not IME.

I would be ah. . . very surprised, to say the least, if someone could "prove" that Vancian magic *does* cause those things. Because my experiences IRL directly contradict that claim. 

OTOH, if some proportion of players and/or DMs has experienced gameplay in line with your theory, whatever that might be, that's cool: styles of play differ. Perhaps for them, a solution to their problem might be in order. That would make perfect sense to me.


----------



## hong

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I would be ah. . . very surprised, to say the least, if someone could "prove" that Vancian magic *does* cause those things. Because my experiences IRL directly contradict that claim.




Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.


----------



## Aus_Snow

hong said:
			
		

> Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.



Please _demonstrate_ that they are not.


----------



## hong

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Please _demonstrate_ that they are not.



http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3752743&postcount=212

Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> Tell me why I should care about the bald statement "I believe in X", shorn of any overall context of the discussion of X.




I didn't say that you should, any more than I said that his statement was correct.

I simply said that, given a statement of "There is no X", one cannot prove the statement by displaying _anything_ (although one can disprove it in such a way).


----------



## gizmo33

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I'd want to protect my horse from danger and summon him whenever I needed him and to sell any magic items I find on adventures and buy new ones.




Well, I'd _want_ to be able to cast a 3,000 ft radius fireball at first level.  I think the issue that addresses versimilitude in an FRPG is whether or not any given feature is consistent with the other features and the assumptions of the campaign world.  In the end what I'm trying to do as a DM is give the illusion that my campaign world could exist in a possible reality.


----------



## Aus_Snow

hong said:
			
		

> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3752743&postcount=212
> 
> Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.



Please _demonstrate_ that they are not.

This time for real.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I didn't say that you should, any more than I said that his statement was correct.




Isn't it fun, posting statements that are pointless in the context of an ongoing discussion?

However, that's MY schtick. Please do not STEAL MY SCHTICK.



> I simply said that, given a statement of "There is no X", one cannot prove the statement by displaying _anything_ (although one can disprove it in such a way).




In which case I would like to followup my statement that my left big toe hurts from where I stubbed it on the wall, with the statement that the wall is hurting a lot more. HAW HAW!


----------



## hong

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Please _demonstrate_ that they are not.




No, no. I asked you first. Please to stop beating around the bush.



> This time for real.




Yes, yes. Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.


----------



## Aus_Snow

hong said:
			
		

> No, no. I asked you first. Please to stop beating around the bush.



That is untrue. You didn't "ask first". Someone else (i.e., not you, and not me) made the initial claim. [Stop unnecessarily repeating yourself.]

It remains to be seen whether that claim will be supported.

Perhaps a poll? 

Well, actually. . . maybe it's not that daft an idea.

Except it'd only get the regular online-forum-goers, plus a few others. Maybe not then. :\




> Yes, yes. Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.



Yes, yes. Please _demonstrate_ that they are not.


----------



## hong

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> That is untrue. You didn't "ask first". Someone else (i.e., not you, and not me) made the initial claim. [Stop unnecessarily repeating yourself.]
> 
> It remains to be seen whether that claim will be supported.




You mean like this?

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3752743&postcount=212



> Perhaps a poll?
> 
> Well, actually. . . maybe it's not that daft an idea.
> 
> Except it'd only get the regular online-forum-goers, plus a few others. Maybe not then. :\




Asking for a statistically rigorous, scientifically valid demonstration of the zeitgeist in the context of a messageboard discussion is unrealistic at best, disingenuous at worst. Hence: you first.



> Yes, yes. Please _demonstrate_ that they are not.




Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3752743&postcount=212
> 
> Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.




That a vocal minority has another experience is not evidence that Aus_Snow's experiences IRL are not reflective of the experiences of the majority.

I honestly don't know any way that one could demonstrate on EN World _what_ the experiences of the majority _are_.

However, if you say "A causes B" and someone says "A does not always cause B, because IME I have A without B" then that reasoning doesn't require that said someone's experiences are relfective of the majority.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> No. Use of symbols != polysyllabication.




I guess I still don't get it.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Extrapolation to extremes -> strawman




I didn't extrapolate anything.  I'm using an example that avoids a debate on whether or not something is challenging.  Were I to use an example like "20th level character vs. 10 ogres", then we could be debating whether or not such a thing were a challenge, which would miss the point in an otherwise irrelevant point.  

If I were trying to talk about issues relating to not being able to lift a weight off of the ground, I would say something like "let's say you were trying to lift a 10,000 pound block".  You'd probably respond with "whoa!  That's an exaggeration, I can't lift a 1,000 pound block.  You're reasoning is based on a strawman!"  My reasoning isn't based on the particular example I used, only the charateristics that the example has.  

If you think I'm missing some characteristics then you could always just say what they are.  For example, if you think that an opponent possessing magic powers *always* makes the combat interesting, then the kobold example isn't really appropriate, and holding on to that *would* be a strawman.  As it stands now I think you're over-applying the concept.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Insertion of previously unseen clause.




Are you playing games or are you trying to say something important here?



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Equivocation.




I'm not trying to mislead you (if that's even what you mean - I find the use of the word without any context to be somewhat ironic given it's definition).  I really believe in the concept of what I'm saying and if there's any slipperiness to the definitions than the mistake is in good faith.  If there's some prize for being right that you're trying to win I'll just concede so you can go collect it.  Otherwise it seems like you're verging on making a point but I can't tell what it is.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> No. You -> wrong.




  You're welcome to all the attention you can get.  I'm trying to do what I can.


----------



## Aus_Snow

hong said:
			
		

> You mean like this?
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3752743&postcount=212



Nope. 

But hey, if it does it for you, that's great! 




> Asking for a statistically rigorous, scientifically valid demonstration of the zeitgeist in the context of a messageboard discussion is unrealistic at best, disingenuous at worst. Hence: you first.



*yawn*

Uh, what? Oh, the "you first" thing. Sure, whatever floats your boat, d00d. And, well, repeating illogical demands certainly seems to.  So have fun! That's what the game's all about. Uh. . .


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That a vocal minority has another experience is not evidence that Aus_Snow's experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.




They are, however, indicative of a problem with the existing ruleset. Now whether that problem is severe enough that it actually needs fixing is another matter, but that doesn't change the fact of the existence of the problem.



> I honestly don't know any way that one could demonstrate on EN World _what_ the experiences of the majority _are_.




One can, however, point to the overall mood and consensus within the community, to identify problems that need fixing. Thus 4E is not changing the 6 stats for D&D characters, for example, because there is no vocal body of opinion calling for their change.



> However, if you say "A causes B" and someone says "A does not always cause B, because IME I have A without B" then that reasoning doesn't require that said someone's experiences are relfective of the majority.




Without context, said someone's experience is relevant to noone except said someone.


----------



## hong

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Nope.




I guessed you would say that.



> *yawn*




Malachias Invictus does this better than you.



> Uh, what? Oh, the "you first" thing. Sure, whatever floats your boat, d00d. And, well, repeating illogical demands certainly seems to.  So have fun! That's what the game's all about. Uh. . .




Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> They are, however, indicative of a problem with the existing ruleset.





Well, I'm glad you're convinced.  I, for one, am not.

RC


----------



## Aus_Snow

hong said:
			
		

> I guessed you would say that.



You are *truly* impressive! 




> Malachias Invictus does this better than you.



Yes, yes. Get to the fun button already. You know you want to.




> Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.



Ah, there we are. Got your fix now? Good, good. 

But hey, how many's that? 5 per encounter? 6? Impressive, indeed!


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, it worked for me, and it worked for those I played with.  Of course, that might just be a difference in game focus happening there.
> 
> In my own house rules, I did include the means for magicians to store unused spell slots




Ah, yes.  The Oberoni Fallacy.

"The rules work perfectly fine because you can ignore them."


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I guess I still don't get it.




Yeah.



> I didn't extrapolate anything.  I'm using an example that avoids a debate on whether or not something is challenging.  Were I to use an example like "20th level character vs. 10 ogres", then we could be debating whether or not such a thing were a challenge, which would miss the point in an otherwise irrelevant point.




Fighting a rock is also not challenging in any edition of D&D. It is, of course, not particularly relevant to any discussion of actual games.



> Are you playing games or are you trying to say something important here?




Yes.



> I'm not trying to mislead you (if that's even what you mean - I find the use of the word without any context to be somewhat ironic given it's definition).  I really believe in the concept of what I'm saying and if there's any slipperiness to the definitions than the mistake is in good faith.  If there's some prize for being right that you're trying to win I'll just concede so you can go collect it.  Otherwise it seems like you're verging on making a point but I can't tell what it is.




It's very simple. Medium-term resource attrition (in the time window of one day) is not a necessary condition for a risky encounter in an RPG. It is also not a necessary condition for an interesting/challenging/fun/whatever-you-call-it encounter in an RPG. It may happen to be a necessary condition for YOUR game using the THIRD EDITION D&D RULESET, but nobody except you is interested in your 3E D&D game. In particular, extending the same preconditions to a game built on a completely different set of assumptions vis-a-vis resource management, is rather unwise.


----------



## Doug McCrae

You can't win, Aus_Snow. Hong's guns never run out of bullets.


----------



## hong

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> You are *truly* impressive!




Yes.



> Yes, yes. Get to the fun button already. You know you want to.




All in good time.



> Ah, there we are. Got your fix now? Good, good.
> 
> But hey, how many's that? 5 per encounter? 6? Impressive, indeed!




Please demonstrate that your experiences IRL are reflective of the experiences of the majority.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> You can't win, Aus_Snow. Hong's guns never run out of bullets.



Cool, I can respect that. But *I* am teh INCIVIBELZ! 

And he's only shooting himself each time.


----------



## hong

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> And he's only shooting himself each time.




It's my secret weapon.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Ah, yes.  The Oberoni Fallacy.
> 
> "The rules work perfectly fine because you can ignore them."




Nah, that's a new innovation based off of the 3.X ruleset that hasn't been extensively playtested yet.  I might have to pull back from it after more playtesting.  I am just admitting that there is a degree to which I agree with you about the Vancian magic system.

Of course, "The rules will work perfectly fine because you can ignore them" is largely what I'm hearing as a response to objections to change, too.

RC


----------



## WayneLigon

Treebore said:
			
		

> I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.




It's less to keep track of, and less of a chance to be stuck with a raft of useless spells. Myself, I'd remove preparation completely and let everyone be a spontaneous caster. Then we'd see a lot more in the way of utility spell usage rather than everyone loading up on Mage Armor, Magic Missle, and Sleep.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> It's very simple. Medium-term resource attrition (in the time window of one day) is not a necessary condition for a risky encounter in an RPG.




(Cool.  Some ideas.  Risky, but hopefully it's worth it.)

I didn't think I said it was necessary.  In fact I gave two different conditions that *could* make an encounter interesting/risky.  The other condition was that it be potentially deadly.  This can happen without a resource issue at all (for example - in a system where everyone has only per-encounter resources).  I can also imagine some other conditions - for example that the kobold (or animated strawman) says something interesting during the fight that has a bearing later on.  But once you get away from the two that I identified I think it gets harder to use them.  Removing the "resource attrition" from the possible consequences of an encounter removes, IMO, one of the big motivators in the current system.  Or just my game?  Do you really need another argument about what "majority" means?  

No one but me is interested in my 3E game?!      I guess I need a story hour!


----------



## gizmo33

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> It's less to keep track of, and less of a chance to be stuck with a raft of useless spells. Myself, I'd remove preparation completely and let everyone be a spontaneous caster. Then we'd see a lot more in the way of utility spell usage rather than everyone loading up on Mage Armor, Magic Missle, and Sleep.




I agree.  But IME one of the down sides is that combat takes even longer when people are flipping through dozens of spell descriptions.  Much like the movement rules in 3E, it doesn't *have* to slow things down if you're real draconian about it.  But recently one of my players suggested that I go back to the standard spell system (and he plays a wizard) because it was just taking everyone too long.  Currently I'm using a hybrid system that allows you to spontaneously cast any spell that you have Spell Mastery in.  A little bit of flexibility can go a long way.


----------



## Rel

I just started reading this thread ten minutes ago and I'm already tired of the little zingers flying back and forth between Hong, et al.  So how about you give it a rest, at least until tomorrow.  I have work then and one of the other moderators can go to the trouble of giving you a tempban.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> (Cool.  Some ideas.  Risky, but hopefully it's worth it.)
> 
> I didn't think I said it was necessary.  In fact I gave two different conditions that *could* make an encounter interesting/risky.  The other condition was that it be potentially deadly.  This can happen without a resource issue at all (for example - in a system where everyone has only per-encounter resources).  I can also imagine some other conditions - for example that the kobold (or animated strawman) says something interesting during the fight that has a bearing later on.  But once you get away from the two that I identified I think it gets harder to use them.  Removing the "resource attrition" from the possible consequences of an encounter removes, IMO, one of the big motivators in the current system.




For medium-term resource attrition, substitute short-term resource attrition.

Under the current paradigm, you get beaten up by some mooks, explore some more, and meet the BBEG. Under the 4E paradigm, you get beaten up by some mooks, then just as the last mook falls, the BBEG enters the room (encounter keeps going, everyone is down resources).

Similarly, escalating challenge over time can be done by varying the encounters rather than the resources.

Under the current paradigm, you meet some monsters and have an easy fight but lose some resources; then you meet some more monsters and have a slightly harder fight and lose even more resources; then you meet some more monsters etc. Under the 4E paradigm, you meet some monsters and have an easy fight; then you meet some tougher monsters and have a slightly harder fight because the monsters are tougher; then you meet some even tougher monsters etc.


----------



## Plane Sailing

The thread has been a bit heated recently, can we try to cool things down a bit please?

Thanks


----------



## Plane Sailing

Now what *really* worries me is that it apparently took at least 4-5 minutes for me to write just that one line, considering the time difference between Rel's moderator comments and mine.

Timezones. It must be timezones...


----------



## Rel

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Now what *really* worries me is that it apparently took at least 4-5 minutes for me to write just that one line, considering the time difference between Rel's moderator comments and mine.
> 
> Timezones. It must be timezones...




The time difference between merry old England and the east coast of the U.S. is 5 minutes?  Why the hell is airfaire so expensive then?!


----------



## Dacileva

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> No, I asked (someone else) specifically for evidence of the "masses" of people professing such objections. It seemed to me, from your last post, that you (who decided to attempt to provide evidence on behalf of another) could not provide this.



How many posters would it take to convince you that there are "masses" of people professing these objections?  I provided over twenty after a cursory search, and that wasn't good enough.  What number should I aim for?



> This is not something you mentioned (that you were "sifting through several thousand pages of posts") before - presumably, you mean "thousands of completely relevant posts". . .?



No, I did not.  I don't see a Search option in these fora (it's been a while since I last used them), so I had to manually sort through all the posts on relevant boards, rather than directing my search.  The Wizards forum (Gleemax) allows searching, though, and I provided several relevant links regarding this topic there, to demonstrate that there *are* large numbers of people who have always been calling for the removal of Vancian spellcasting.



> Not really. It exists because someone made it. And someone made it because. . . well, there is an infinite variety of reasons why someone might choose to do that. Or just astoundingly many reasons, perhaps. Either way.
> 
> Well, why wouldn't an RPG writer put whatever it is they're presenting in a positive light? I've seen writers do that, from just about any game company, for just about any book. It doesn't always mean a great deal. OK, it _might_. But yeah, it equally might _not_.



There is no such thing as a perfect RPG.  House rules and rules variants don't come out of nowhere.  Most house rules and variants are created in an attempt to address a perceived flaw, inconsistency or lack (even if that lack is 'this doesn't quite work the way I'd prefer it to').

If something works exactly how you want it to work, why create a different way of doing it?

If something doesn't work how you want it to work, why not create a house rule/variant rule to be constructive, instead of being critical of the original?

Given the development teams' comments during 3.0, 3.5 and 4e development, it is obvious that *they*, at least, see "what items get house ruled most frequently?" as shorthand for "what should we change next edition?".



> Not all people play the game the same way. Simple as that.
> 
> I haven't seen (or encouraged/discouraged) those things - well, apart from the odd attrition encounter, actually - in games I've run, featuring at least _some_ Vancian spellcasting.
> 
> And as a player, it ain't that way, either. Not IME.



Taking only games that feature Vancian spellcasting:

1. How many encounters do you (as a player or DM) go through each in-game day?
2. How long (in-game) do those encounters take, total?
3. What percentage of the party's resources (spell slots, hp, expendable magic items) are expended in each encounter on average?


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> For medium-term resource attrition, substitute short-term resource attrition.




IMO that's not exactly and even swap.  AFAICT the short-term situation requires more contrivance by the DM.  Granted, I guess it's a matter of style but I'm not accustomed to having BBEGs show up miraculously at just the right time for no reason - which is how I interpret this.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Under the current paradigm, you get beaten up by some mooks, explore some more, and meet the BBEG. Under the 4E paradigm, you get beaten up by some mooks, then just as the last mook falls, the BBEG enters the room (encounter keeps going, everyone is down resources).




What you're saying matches the snippets of what I've seen from WotC, so AFAICT we at least see them saying the same thing.  My problem, as I alluded to above, is that I think it narrows the range of interesting encounters.  In the current paradigm, the BBEG showing up just at the right time can still happen, but it's not *required* in order to make the battle with the mooks meaningful.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Similarly, escalating challenge over time can be done by varying the encounters rather than the resources.




It's not so much the matter of escalation, it's the *possibility* of escalation that's present in the old paradigm.  You had to burn a spell to heal the fighter after an unlucky hit by a kobold, and the question hangs over your head as to whether or not you'll need that spell in the future.  In the proposed 4E paradigm, the question is settled after "the encounter is over" (whatever that actually means, but I guess that's another topic)



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Under the current paradigm, you meet some monsters and have an easy fight but lose some resources; then you meet some more monsters and have a slightly harder fight and lose even more resources; then you meet some more monsters etc. Under the 4E paradigm, you meet some monsters and have an easy fight; then you meet some tougher monsters and have a slightly harder fight because the monsters are tougher; then you meet some even tougher monsters etc.




Are you saying the paradigms require this?  I can't quite tell what you mean here.  In the case of the 4E paradigm, are you saying that an easy fight must be followed by a tougher fight in order for things to be interesting?  One of my issues is that I can't see how the easy fight has any meaning at all once your resources have all reset, and given that an easy fight is likely to utilize only encounter-level resources.

Some of this might come down to gaming style:  I like to run a fairly open-ended adventure.  I don't run a story-telling style per se.  I don't know that the BBEG is going to show up at a particular time, it's often the case that NPC actions are contingent on events in the game that I don't know the outcome of until we play.  In 4E apparently, my judgements are going to be pressured by the fact that certain situations that weren't so boring in the 3E paradigm are boring in the 4E paradigm.  I have to string together even more contrivances in order to make the adventure interesting.  If I don't have the BBEG show up after the mook battle, I shouldn't have wasted everyone's time.  Granted, for a few seconds you might not know how it goes, but that's it.

Granted, this is a continuum.  I don't play out uneventful travel time across great distances.  I don't play out trivial battles between 20th level characters and a few low-level bandits.  But according to the proposed 4E paradigm, they're actually increasing the list of uninteresting things that I'll have to skip over, and so far shortening the list of interesting things.  

Resource management IMO was an interesting part of the game, and it keeps me from having to rely on battles that constantly threaten the lives of the PCs in order to make things interesting.

Maybe I should cut to the chase - healing magic.  It might all come down to hitpoints and healing magic.  If you can't insta-heal after encounters, then I suppose it's back to a more 3E paradigm.  I don't particularly think that giving wizards magic spells instead of a crossbow to rely on makes much difference to the game flow.  I like the idea for flavor reasons.  I'm not exactly ready to give people a pass on their habit of blowing all of their high level spells in a first few rounds of combat, but I think there could be a decent comprimise.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> IMO that's not exactly and even swap.  AFAICT the short-term situation requires more contrivance by the DM.  Granted, I guess it's a matter of style but I'm not accustomed to having BBEGs show up miraculously at just the right time for no reason - which is how I interpret this.




Why not? How is it any more contrived than to have the party miraculously wander into his living room just as they're half out of resources? The only difference is that with one setup, the onus is on the party to keep things moving; with the other, it's on the DM.

Or if you don't like the BBEG just showing up unannounced, you can just run it as one big fight against BBEG-plus-minions, all at the same time.



> What you're saying matches the snippets of what I've seen from WotC, so AFAICT we at least see them saying the same thing.  My problem, as I alluded to above, is that I think it narrows the range of interesting encounters.  In the current paradigm, the BBEG showing up just at the right time can still happen, but it's not *required* in order to make the battle with the mooks meaningful.




However, the battle with the mooks is meaningful _only_ if the party decides to keep on going. If they do, great! If they don't, then all that elaborate resource attrition is nullified. Again, the difference is only in who the onus is on to keep things moving.



> It's not so much the matter of escalation, it's the *possibility* of escalation that's present in the old paradigm.  You had to burn a spell to heal the fighter after an unlucky hit by a kobold, and the question hangs over your head as to whether or not you'll need that spell in the future.  In the proposed 4E paradigm, the question is settled after "the encounter is over" (whatever that actually means, but I guess that's another topic)




The issue of uncertainty also happens in per-encounter balancing, but over a shorter time frame. Do I burn a spell this round to heal the fighter, when I might need it next round?

Basically instead of small, individually meaningless fights that only make sense from a design perspective if you string them together correctly, you can have larger, more elaborate fights that make sense even when taken individually.



> Are you saying the paradigms require this?  I can't quite tell what you mean here.  In the case of the 4E paradigm, are you saying that an easy fight must be followed by a tougher fight in order for things to be interesting?




No, I'm saying that IF you like the escalating-challenge paradigm, THEN you can still do it with per-encounter balancing. Personally I think escalating-challenge is silly more often than not, and a relic of the focus on dungeoneering; instead I have lots of one-off, climactic fights. But if that's the kind of thing you like, you can still do it. And yes, IF you want escalating-challenge, then fights have to happen in a particular sequence. The same thing happens with per-day balancing, only in that case the sequence is not in terms of specific fights but that there _is_ a sequence. The onus is on the players to make sure that sequence comes about: if they don't want it, they can just run away and rest up, thus making a mockery of escalating-challenge.



> One of my issues is that I can't see how the easy fight has any meaning at all once your resources have all reset, and given that an easy fight is likely to utilize only encounter-level resources.




"Easy" is relative. An easy fight might still be enough to kill someone, or come close to it.



> Resource management IMO was an interesting part of the game, and it keeps me from having to rely on battles that constantly threaten the lives of the PCs in order to make things interesting.




Why NOT rely on battles that threaten the lives of PCs? Isn't risk supposed to be part of the game, or so that's what a lot of people keep saying? Where's the excitement if there's no risk?


----------



## Rykion

I think it is interesting to note that there is currently a poll on the 4th ed page asking what rumoured aspects of 4th ed people like.  Currently around 64% of the people who have responded like the defocus on Vancian magic.  That seems to indicate there are quite a few ENworlders who favor a change in the magic system.


----------



## WayneLigon

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I would be ah. . . very surprised, to say the least, if someone could "prove" that Vancian magic *does* cause those things. Because my experiences IRL directly contradict that claim.




My experiences correlate exactly to it, at least as the "15-minute adventuring day" goes. The Vancian system is a guessing game that requires you to metagame somewhat and read the GM's mind for you to attempt to maximize your ability to affect the encounters.

You pick spells and hope that you have the right ones for the job. If you guess wrong, you're stuck with a boatload of useless magic until the next day. So your mage sits around and tries to hit things with a crossbow. Not fun. 

OR You find that you're one of the major people that can affect the encounter. UNless you're loaded up exetnsively with all-mass-damage spells, you fire off three or four of those... and you're done. For the day at lower and mid-range levels. The rest of your spells, since they are discrete packets of 'spell' instead of scalable 'powers' either have no chance of affecting the encounter or will not do an appreciable amount of damage.. and you have to save some for the next thing and the next thing.

Two things now happen; either you spent your best spells in the encounter, or you saved them, hoping against hope that something else will utilize your strengths. That isn't really strategizing, it's guessing. At some point, though, the Vancian system means you'll be using that crossbow if the party keeps on going and having encounters. No-one wants to use the crossbow. You picked a wizard because you like tossing around flaming death or penetrating the minds of others, not playing a +0-BAB rogue.

So eventually (especially when you have a part that's heavy in spellcasters) the players are going to say 'OK, we go back to town' after the first room or two when they are out of their best spells. The problem actually increases at higher levels, because so much of what you have becomes useless due to high saves and SR and other factors. By the time you're 12th level, that first couple levels of spells might as well go away. And where do you have your greatest magic potential? Right: in the first couple levels of spells.

You can say 'NO, you keep going'. And the players will either say 'To heck with you, we're leaving' or hand you the character sheets since apparently you know what's best for the PC's than they do. Short game or no players. No fun for anyone.

Getting to do something fun every round isn't possible with the Vancian system and people are finally, finally starting to realize this and that is is possible to have just as much fun as the fighter or rogue - all that needs to change is the system.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> Why not? How is it any more contrived than to have the party miraculously wander into his living room just as they're half out of resources?




It's not more contrived, but then I don't see it as an either-or choice.  Up until when they actually meet the BBEG they don't know what their resource requirements are going to be.  In the standard dungeon crawling paradigm you don't actually *have the PCs wander" anywhere.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> The only difference is that with one setup, the onus is on the party to keep things moving; with the other, it's on the DM.




I don't think there's enough information to say that in the 3E paradigm.  In many cases the "dungoen will come to the PCs" if they don't go to it.  If a kobold escapes, for instance, and warns the BBEG.  Then the fight is meaningful on two levels, whereas it's only in the case that the BBEG gets there within the hazily defined boundaries of "the encounter" that the 4E paradigm is of equal interest.

The 4E paradigm seems to assume that DMs have stopped designing their adventures in ways where the bad guys react in a sentient fashion.  James Wyatt's quote counts the daily recharge period as a given, which I think is a consequence of rather superficial adventure design.  What 4E is attempting to do is remove the situation where the PCs have to recharge resources, thus removing the requirement from the DM that he plan for this contingency.

In the 3E paradigm there are consequences to not managing daily resources - mainly that you don't achieve daily objectives.  The time requirements for encounter-based resources are much more narrow, and the situation where time is a factor become much more contrived.  Now I don't see why the "James Wyatt quote" calls out not achieving the daily objective as somehow being unfun, but getting killed is?  Because getting killed seems to be the only thing preserved on an increasingly short list of things that can happen to your character.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Or if you don't like the BBEG just showing up unannounced, you can just run it as one big fight against BBEG-plus-minions, all at the same time.




I don't *have* as many things happen as a DM as you imply - I suspect some of this is a gaming style issue.  Any kind of perceived pattern to when things happen in my campaign will hurt the versimilitude.  BBEGs IMO should fight the PCs when it makes sense, and adding a pressure that certain battles won't be interesting unless that fight happens in a certain way seems like a negative to me.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> However, the battle with the mooks is meaningful _only_ if the party decides to keep on going. If they do, great! If they don't, then all that elaborate resource attrition is nullified.




I think that's overstating it - it's nullified eventually no matter what - it can't go on forever.  What I'm saying is that significance is maintained longer in the 3E than in the 4E paradigm.  You skipped over the fact that the choice to rest and reset is a significant one when it isn't an "insta-boost".  Having to find someplace to camp and assess your safety against potentially intelligent foes makes the decision to camp non-trivial.  Spending 3 rounds standing around until everyone boosts is pretty trivial by comparison unless things are rigidly scripted.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> The issue of uncertainty also happens in per-encounter balancing, but over a shorter time frame. Do I burn a spell this round to heal the fighter, when I might need it next round?




If you're wondering round-to-round whether or not to completely use up an encounter-level resource then I would consider that a tough fight, and hopefully addressed by my comments below.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Basically instead of small, individually meaningless fights that only make sense from a design perspective if you string them together correctly, you can have larger, more elaborate fights that make sense even when taken individually.




In order for fights to be meaningful they must be larger, that's the basic situation with the 4E paradigm.  In the 3E paradigm, you don't need to "string them together correctly" AFAICT.  The resource management combines with uncertainty about the future to create interesting strategic issues.  With an encounter-level "insta-boost", there's really no uncertainty about the future because your use of resources doesn't affect it.  (Except within the encounter itself, again, IMO, this is an implicit suggestion that an interesting 4E encounter has to be a potentially deadly one.)



			
				hong said:
			
		

> instead I have lots of one-off, climactic fights.




I don't understand how the 3E paradigm fails to support this.  The stated problem with the 3E paradigm was that it forced people to rest after the mook-encounters, but if you don't have those then how exactly does the existing system not mesh with the "one grand battle per day" practice?



			
				hong said:
			
		

> The onus is on the players to make sure that sequence comes about: if they don't want it, they can just run away and rest up, thus making a mockery of escalating-challenge.




Again, I don't see the onus.  Example one:  PCs enter the fortress of Sauron - a bunch of mook encounters plus BBEG.  If they decide to retreat after mook encounter #1, then they'll have to face the consequences, which could reverberate for some time.  

Example two:  PCs enter a forgotten tomb without intelligent adversaries.  In this case retreating after a mook encounter has no real consequence, unless there are unknown time issues.  But then it's probably not the case that a tomb designer designs his guardians/traps to be handled in such a way, and this is according to in-game versimilitude, not some arbitrary pacing forced on the PCs by the game system.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> "Easy" is relative. An easy fight might still be enough to kill someone, or come close to it.




?  I'm talking about easy from the perspective of the PCs.  I can't imagine someone using the term "easy" to describe a fight where they thought they were going to die.  IME players can pretty quickly and accurately assess their chances of survivial in most situations - IMO it's a consequence of the game rules (like hitpoints).



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Why NOT rely on battles that threaten the lives of PCs? Isn't risk supposed to be part of the game, or so that's what a lot of people keep saying? Where's the excitement if there's no risk?




Because, as I thought everyone with a "killer DM" phase under their belt would know, relying on the threat of death to make things interesting is going to result in a high fatality rate.  It's a similar argument to the standard argument that Gygax made against critical tables.  Unless you fudge pretty regularly (and I guess that's a big if), there's really no way to keep this going.  A perceptible chance of death, over time, results in a near certainty that someone will die.  Now granted, if there's resurrection or "redo" type magic, then maybe death is an issue the first or second time, but IME you just can't keep the con going indefinitely.

IME, the transition from "killer DM" to DM happens when you realize that the thrill of risk is enhanced with uncertainty.  And *that* is the crux of my issue because instantly recharging resources removes a dimension of uncertainty.  There are still ways to add uncertainty to the 4E paradigm, but the list is at least shorter by 1.

I don't mean to be presumptious about your DMing style (which I don't know about), these are just all of the possibilities that I can conceive of.  Either there *is* a real risk of death with every encounter, in which case the fatality rate will be high and new characters will be rolled up frequenty (talk about long-term resources), or the risk of death is mitigated by DM fudging, which IME is something the players catch onto in fairly short order.


----------



## Stereofm

whydirt said:
			
		

> While I agree somewhat with what you're saying, I think any benefit from the level of strategy provided by managing "per day" resources is outweighed by the hindrance of dealing with the 9:00 -> 9:05 adventuring hours problem.




That looks rather like a bad DMing problem than anything else IMHO.

Anyways, i am the minority, so ...


----------



## gizmo33

Stereofm said:
			
		

> Anyways, i am the minority, so ...




The minority being who?  Everyone who plays the game the way it was originally designed?  

I don't quite understand what the "9:00 to 9:05" problem exactly is.

PCs:  That was a tough battle.  What time is it?
DM:  It's 9:05?
PCs:  Ok, well hopefully there's nothing in the dungeon that's picked up our trail.  Let's go rest a day.  (Other players agree).  We go outside, cast Leomund's Secure Shelter, and sleep.
DM:   (reviews his design, decides on no encounters)  Ok, the day passes uneventfully.
PCs:  Alright, we rememorize spells and back into the dungeon we go.
(The End)

Oh the humanity!      Is this really a problem?  Do DMs make people role-play out the sharpening of their swords?  Are these situations that common?  And what's really the significant difference between that and:

PCs:  That was a tough battle.  We wait a round until we hear that "clicking noise" that indicates we've gained back our powers.
DM:  (reviews his design, decides on no encounters in that short time):  Ok, the round passes uneventfully.
PCs:  Alright, we got our spells and hitpoints back, let's go.


----------



## wgreen

Stereofm said:
			
		

> That looks rather like a bad DMing problem than anything else IMHO.



Contributing to the problem of too-frequent resting are spells like _rope trick_ and _teleport_.  It's easy to say, "Well, if the PCs rest after just one encounter, I'll toss some wandering monsters at them while they rest," but if the party's in an invisible extradimensional space, or safe and sound hundreds of miles away...

-Will


----------



## wgreen

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Oh the humanity!      Is this really a problem?  Do DMs make people role-play out the sharpening of their swords?  Are these situations that common?  And what's really the significant difference between that and:
> 
> PCs:  That was a tough battle.  We wait a round until we hear that "clicking noise" that indicates we've gained back our powers.
> DM:  (reviews his design, decides on no encounters in that short time):  Ok, the round passes uneventfully.
> PCs:  Alright, we got our spells and hitpoints back, let's go.



The difference is that 3e is designed under the assumption that the party _isn't_ resting for eight hours after every encounter, while 4e's assumptions are different.

Also, it's more aesthetically pleasant, narrative-wise, for the PCs to rest for a few minutes after every battle than it is for them to sleep for eight hours.

-Will


----------



## Mallus

wgreen said:
			
		

> Also, it's more aesthetically pleasant, narrative-wise, for the PCs to rest for a few minutes after every battle than it is for them to sleep for eight hours...



... in the middle of monster-ridden ruins that just so happen to sport a number of "sleeper cars"  which are only periodically disturbed by noisy fellow passengers wandering man-eating monsters.

(assuming, of course, the standard static dungeon-diving paradigm)


----------



## Doug McCrae

Were all you guys actually sticking with 4 encounters/day in 3e? We'd mostly switched to one or two tough ones to make them more interesting for precisely the reason James Wyatt gives. Three pointless encounters is, well, pointless. Also we found it practically impossible to enforce 4/day anyway. The PCs are almost always the invaders, which means they can leave whenever they want and rest. Yes, I know the monsters can sometimes attack them but 90% of the time they can't, in my experience, due to lack of sentience, organisation, tracking, or the PC's base being too well hidden or defended. And we just didn't use big dungeons much, finding them to be both implausible and boring. Time limits were also very rare, being hard for the DM to justify.


----------



## gizmo33

wgreen said:
			
		

> Also, it's more aesthetically pleasant, narrative-wise, for the PCs to rest for a few minutes after every battle than it is for them to sleep for eight hours.




I don't get that either.  Neither case seeems particularly significant in the overall narrative.

(As a side note, what exactly is the "narrative" related description of an "encounter".  At least "8 hours" has some sort of game-world reality to it.)  

It just seems to me that DMs are simply not preparing for contingencies.  All the examples I can think of where the narrative is "wrecked" by unanticipated PC actions (such as resting, but really anything else) are situations of a less-than-helpful adventure design.  IMO a good adventure design considers the relatively obvious possibility that the PCs retreat, for whatever reason, and come back - with reinforcements, other equipment, or whatever.

So if rope trick is a problem (and I think it is) then just redesign the spell.  The spell occurs at a level where the typical monsters have no recourse against it, then it's inappropriately leveled.  

In 3E, here's a possible good narrative:  PCs attempt to rescue the princess from the evil wizard.  PCs fail to get by the mooks and are forced to rest.  Princess gets sacrificed to Set.  Granted, this is failure, and interpreted by some as "unfun".  Others I guess would prefer that the only kind of failure is a TPK.  

When it comes to good narratives, IMO, it's as much about the DM adapting to situations as it is trying to shoehorn them into a small list of frameworks that you have already determined to be interesting.  I don't exactly know that this is what's happening, but it really seems like it.


----------



## Doug McCrae

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> In 3E, here's a possible good narrative:  PCs attempt to rescue the princess from the evil wizard.  PCs fail to get by the mooks and are forced to rest.  Princess gets sacrificed to Set.  Granted, this is failure, and interpreted by some as "unfun".  Others I guess would prefer that the only kind of failure is a TPK.



For that to work the DM has to make it 100% clear to the players there is a time limit. And then repeat it for the one who wasn't listening and the one who was out the room.


----------



## gizmo33

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Were all you guys actually sticking with 4 encounters/day in 3e? We'd mostly switched to one or two tough ones to make them more interesting for precisely the reason James Wyatt gives.




Sure, why not?  But then I don't see what the problem is with the existing paradigm.  You don't use long dungeon crawls, then why is there a problem?  If all encounters are 1/day, then all resources are "per-encounter" AFAICT.  Someone who is designing encounters on a daily basis should simply keep the target CR higher than in a larger dungeon - which should be designed with the big picture in mind.

But it doesn't go the other way, if you want to do daily encounters in 3E, you still can.  If you want an encounter to have significance in terms of attrition in 4E, there's no such thing.


----------



## Doug McCrae

If a system requires me to put a time constraint in all my adventures then that's a bad system. It severely limits the kind of adventures I can run.


----------



## Mallus

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> PCs attempt to rescue the princess from the evil wizard.  PCs fail to get by the mooks and are forced to rest.



I think it's the built-in assumption that the protagonists will be able to rest up for an extended duration (pretty much wherever they are, like in the middle of some monster hotel dungeon) that some people --like me-- find unpalatable, not the consequences for such delaying.


----------



## Doug McCrae

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Sure, why not?  But then I don't see what the problem is with the existing paradigm.



With one encounter per day, wizards > fighters.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> If you want an encounter to have significance in terms of attrition



I don't.


----------



## wgreen

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't get that either.  Neither case seeems particularly significant in the overall narrative.




7:00 AM:  PCs wake up, break camp, and continue on their journey.
7:15 AM:  PCs encounter some monsters, and have a rousing good fight!
7:16 AM:  PCs make camp and sleep for eight hours.

You don't think anything's weird about that?



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> (As a side note, what exactly is the "narrative" related description of an "encounter".  At least "8 hours" has some sort of game-world reality to it.)



I'm not talking about the in-game rationale for recovering resources.  I'm saying that "The adventurers paused for a few minutes after the battle to catch their breath" feels a lot better than "the adventurers made camp yet again, despite having been awake for all of twenty minutes."



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So if rope trick is a problem (and I think it is) then just redesign the spell.  The spell occurs at a level where the typical monsters have no recourse against it, then it's inappropriately leveled.



Sure, that would be one option.  _Teleport_ could still be a problem.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> In 3E, here's a possible good narrative:  PCs attempt to rescue the princess from the evil wizard.  PCs fail to get by the mooks and are forced to rest.  Princess gets sacrificed to Set.  Granted, this is failure, and interpreted by some as "unfun".  Others I guess would prefer that the only kind of failure is a TPK.



Sure, if there's time pressure, there isn't really a problem (in this context).  I'd prefer it if time pressure weren't absolutely _required_, though.

-Will


----------



## gizmo33

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> For that to work the DM has to make it 100% clear to the players there is a time limit. And then repeat it for the one who wasn't listening and the one who was out the room.




It actually works, IME, under a broader range of experiences.

Imagine IRL if you robbed a bank.  You go home to hide with a big bag of money, waiting for someone to sneak you out of the kingdom.  I bet 99% of people would be up all night, pacing the floor, wondering if the cops are going to come down on them.  They didn't have to be "told" by some celestial DM that this would happen, it's just common sense.  And since the real world has great amounts of versimilitude, you worry about these things.

But as a player of a game, if you realize after some time that the NPCs in the world go into stasis every time you're not around, you're going to become correspondingly lazy in the way you play.   Maybe certain spells have reduced/eliminated uncertainty in these situations, but then the solution IMO is not to revamp the structure of the game.

The players in my campaign don't really need to be told what's going on like that.  Simply knowing that an NPC holds a hostage means time is not on your side, that's just common sense and someone who doesn't get that IMO is not taking the versimilitude of the campaign world seriously, which is a fixable problem.

In fact, them not knowing is part of the motivation for not resting.  Let's say Sauron raided a village and you're going to go into his dungeon and kill him.  You don't even know that Sauron isn't working on a doomsday device that means there won't be a tomorrow.  You don't know that one of the villagers is still alive and will be sacrificed tomorrow.  If the DM prepares such contingencies, *and lets the chips fall when the decisions are made*, then over time (relatively short, IME) the player's won't be so cavalier about assuming everything just stays put while they get their beauty sleep.

In the rare instances where the players can be certain of no consequences from resting, then it plays out almost exactly as I would expect an "encounter-based" resource situation to play out.  "PCs:  We go outside and rest.  DM:  Ok, next day - here's what's going on..."  In the case where there are no consequences to resting, then I don't see what the negative consequences are to the narrative.


----------



## gizmo33

wgreen said:
			
		

> Sure, that would be one option.  _Teleport_ could still be a problem.




By the time the PCs have teleport you would think the monsters would be able to adapt.  Teleport opens up as many possiblities for adventure as it reduces, it's basically a matter of the DM adjusting his design strategy.  The alternative is that the capabilities of the PCs aren't fundementally different from 1st to 30th level.



			
				wgreen said:
			
		

> Sure, if there's time pressure, there isn't really a problem (in this context).  I'd prefer it if time pressure weren't absolutely _required_, though.




It's not required.  IME PCs will always wonder if it's there even in situations where it's not.  And IMO it's unrealistic for it never to be there given that the bulk of adversaries faced by PCs are intelligent and connected.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> (As a side note, what exactly is the "narrative" related description of an "encounter".  At least "8 hours" has some sort of game-world reality to it.)




Dude, seriously?  It's getting annoying that you keep ignoring this.

"Per encounter," in all applicable d20 rules in which it's come up, means "Meditate / rest for a minute to get your powers back."

If you can handle "rest for 8 hours to get power X back," you can handle "rest for 1 minute to get power Y back."


----------



## Celebrim

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Were all you guys actually sticking with 4 encounters/day in 3e? We'd mostly switched to one or two tough ones to make them more interesting for precisely the reason James Wyatt gives. Three pointless encounters is, well, pointless. Also we found it practically impossible to enforce 4/day anyway. The PCs are almost always the invaders, which means they can leave whenever they want and rest. Yes, I know the monsters can sometimes attack them but 90% of the time they can't, in my experience, due to lack of sentience, organisation, tracking, or the PC's base being too well hidden or defended. And we just didn't use big dungeons much, finding them to be both implausible and boring. Time limits were also very rare, being hard for the DM to justify.




This returns us back to the way that I think Mr. Wyatt was looking at the problem wrong.

First of all, a 'pointless encounter' is any encounter that doesn't advance the story in some way.  It's not 'pointless' because it is easy.  If the encounters are pointless, then its either because of bad dungeon design, bad dungeoneering by the PC's where they waste resources on unnecessary combats.  I don't ever recall wandering through the ToH and thinking, "This door with the spear trap is pointless."  Not every encounter needs to be "OMG!11!! That roxor."  Not every fight needs to be turned up to 11. 

Mr. Wyatt said that the reason that the game had evolved toward one big encounter per days was that according to the design the first three were boring, and only the fourth was challenging.  But that wasn't the problem at all.   The problem is as you say, that its almost impossible to get the PC's to try that fourth encounter in the first place.  If the fourth encounter per day is the only one with risk, then the tendancy for smart players is to avoid the fourth encounter per day.  As a result of being unable to challenge the players, DMs tend to ramp up the challenge, which results in the players taking on few challenges, and eventually you evolve to one ecounter per day (or really, however long it takes for the players to recouperate.  At low levels, this might take more than a day.)

The thing is, the same thing is going to play out with a 'per encounter' design.  Yes, the players will recover more resources after every encounter, and that theoretically might compel them to move on.  But so long as ANY resources aren't recovered after one encounter, the smart players are going to choose to stop as soon as they lose any critical resource (even if only hit points).   Because, why risk it?  And the meta game problems of "lack of sentience, organisation, tracking, or the PC's base being too well hidden or defended" will continue as well so long as you don't design for them.  So long as the DM doesn't impose time limits and doesn't have long journeys between the PC's haven and thier goal, they are still going to stop and rest at every chance they get because _that's tactically the smart decision_.  It doesn't matter if they are 50% or 80% or 99% after an encounter, its still going to be smart to rest. 

Per encounter won't change that at all.  The only solution to this problem is good DMing.

The hardest module TSR ever published wasn't Tomb of Horrors.  With the exception of the skull, theoretically an 'pointless' encounter, ToH is very beatable.  Just rest after every room.  Go slow.  Take your time.  A smart group of players with characters of the suggested level should do just fine because they aren't under a time constraint.  So long as they don't blunder into a TPK with no saving throw (and they shouldn't if they are smart), the module is 'easy'.  No, the hardest module TSR ever published was Ravenloft.   Ran by a ruthless DM and at the suggested character levels for the module it is simply impossible to win.  The reason is pretty simple.  Although it isn't made explicit, the PC's are under a really really harsh time limit.  Kill Straad between sunup and sundown, or die.  The reason that you have to do the main dungeon crawl in a single day is that Straad always always always wins the war of attrition.  He has regeneration.  He has level drain.  He has more spells per day than the PCs.  He has more information than the PC's.  He is proactive and will hunt them down and they have no where they can run.  He can play hit and run better than they can.  

And the reason that the adventure is unwinable is that Ravenloft is simply too huge of a dungeon with too many potential distractions for the PC's to get through it in a day.  As soon as they do the 'smart thing' and rest to try to recover, its pretty much all over.

I'm not at all suggesting that adventures be as hard as Ravenloft, but if your adventurers aren't up against some sort of clock, then it is ridiculous to expect that changing the mechanics of the game will encourage them to stop taking thier time, being cautious, and playing it safe.


----------



## Treebore

Rykion said:
			
		

> I think it is interesting to note that there is currently a poll on the 4th ed page asking what rumoured aspects of 4th ed people like.  Currently around 64% of the people who have responded like the defocus on Vancian magic.  That seems to indicate there are quite a few ENworlders who favor a change in the magic system.





I favor change in the magic system, if it makes sense, and doesn't take the game into Dragonball Z land.

Thats the frustrating thing about these "glimpses", you don't know if your going to like it or not.


----------



## ruleslawyer

See, this is my problem with your argument, Celebrim: It's too binary. 


			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The thing is, the same thing is going to play out with a 'per encounter' design. Yes, the players will recover more resources after every encounter, and that theoretically might compel them to move on. But so long as ANY resources aren't recovered after one encounter, the smart players are going to choose to stop as soon as they lose any critical resource (even if only hit points). Because, why risk it?



I disagree that this is really the expected scenario. IME, even serious D&D tacticians back off only once _significant_ or _critical_ resources are expended. Your argument appears to be (and in fact you phrased it almost literally this way earlier in this thread) that "dropping to 99% of resources is going to force a rest." Again IME, the calculus is neither so extreme nor so linear. A party typically (again IME) retreats and rests when hp are low, buffs are exhausted, and the mages have no really decent combat capability to bring to bear. Add to that "essential defenses" like death ward, mind blank, and protection from spells. It's not a case of "Okay guys, Joe is down 10 of his 200 hp and I've got only one 9th-level spell left, so let's leave." A per-encounter system DOES address this issue by allowing critical or significant resources to be replenished to the point that the party doesn't feel the need to retreat.

Moreover, those players who feel a single cantrip or 5 hp damage to be sufficient reason to retreat and rest aren't going to be _worse_ off in a per-encounter/per-day hybrid; they're going to play it _exactly the same_. Thus, _at worst_, there's not an iota of difference between a per-encounter/per-day hybrid system and and a straight per-day system. The difference with a hybrid system, to use your example, is that a timed adventure like Ravenloft can be played with the understanding that the party will be weakened, _but not entirely gimped with respect to spellcasting and other essential party roles_, by the climax of the adventure.


----------



## gizmo33

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Dude, seriously?  It's getting annoying that you keep ignoring this.




Ignoring what?  This is the first time I've seen this definition.  "Per encounter" means after 1 minute of rest.  That's cool, question answered.


----------



## Mkhaiwati

> I'm not at all suggesting that adventures be as hard as Ravenloft, but if your adventurers aren't up against some sort of clock, then it is ridiculous to expect that changing the mechanics of the game will encourage them to stop taking thier time, being cautious, and playing it safe.




A clock is only part of the equation in my games. The PCs don't live in a static world. Perhaps they are trying to retrieve an item from someone else, orcs or some other group. If a party does the break in, kill a few orcs, leave and come back the next day, they might find traps waiting for them, increased patrols, and other surprises. Another group of villians might just move somewhere else if they get the idea that another group is hunting/killing them down. 

Another option is if a party takes too long in a task, it can be accomplished by another, NPC party that will accept all the rewards.

Keeping everything static contributes to the 9:00 to 9:15 problem.


----------



## Celebrim

Mkhaiwati said:
			
		

> A clock is only part of the equation in my games. The PCs don't live in a static world. Perhaps they are trying to retrieve an item from someone else, orcs or some other group. If a party does the break in, kill a few orcs, leave and come back the next day, they might find traps waiting for them, increased patrols, and other surprises. Another group of villians might just move somewhere else if they get the idea that another group is hunting/killing them down.
> 
> Another option is if a party takes too long in a task, it can be accomplished by another, NPC party that will accept all the rewards.




When I spoke of a 'clock', I meant it in the most abstract terms.  Essentially, by 'clock' I meant only a way to adjust the math so that waiting was not as attractive of a tactical decision as pushing on.  There really is no actual clock counting down in 'Ravenloft' either, its just that the more chances they give Strahd to recover, the worse things get for the players.  Thus, while there is no actual timelimit after which the scenario is lost, there is effectively a time limit.  What Mkhaiwati lists are a few excellent ways to put a 'clock' on the party.  With all the different techniques for putting time pressure on the party, a DM really has no excuse for being unable to do so.  It's not always desirable, but its usually desirable.  You'd be hard pressed to find an action/adventure movie where the hero wasn't under time pressure.  If you are looking for cinematic feel, perhaps you should be looking more in that direction.

ruleslawyer: My argument isn't too binary.  We have just been focusing on a special case underwhich the logic is really binary.

The logic goes, "If benefit I get from waiting minus the cost of waiting is greater than the benefit I getting from pressing on minus the cost of pressing on, then I should wait."  

The special case in question is, "There is no cost associated with waiting."  There is as I've put it, 'No clock'.   If there is no cost associated with waiting, and there are any resources that can be recovered by doing so, then its always best to wait.  A party might still choose to push on even then, but if they do so it isn't for any tactical reason.  For example, they may push on because they feel vaguely uneasy about the 5 minute adventuring day and don't want to break versimilitude.  But that's really a different issue.

If there is some cost to waiting, some risk or resources that are expended, then the math gets less binary.

I think you are on safer ground when you suggest that the per encounter system can't make this problem worse, and that I fully agree with.  I'd add to that that one thing it can do is help deal with that unease about the story not flowing right by making the imaginary rest period more plausible.  However, my guess on how it will actually play out in practice is that the game will go even stronger toward one single big encounter because a 'per encounter' system puts even more pressure on the DM to 'ramp it up' if he wants to challenge the players.

As for Ravenloft, its one of my favorite modules for so many reasons I won't list here.  I just think that the recommended levels for the module are too low if the module is not being run as a tournament module.  It certainly can be run as written, and I've seen skilled parties (those that realize that a vampire enherently means time pressure, and can avoid going in circles in the castle, and stay out of unnecessary fights) get close to achieving victory.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Ignoring what?  This is the first time I've seen this definition.  "Per encounter" means after 1 minute of rest.  That's cool, question answered.




Really?

In that case, I'm sorry for the snarkiness.

The current way in which per-encounter resources work has been mentioned in just about every "Per Encounter WTF?"-type thread.  It's hard to miss it, but I suppose it's possible given the evidence! 

"Per Encounter" is really just shorthand for "Most of the time, the PCs will be able to have all of these abilities available in every encounter."  Generally, finding a minute to rest in between "encounters" isn't going to be an issue (it's less than the time a 3E rogue would spend Taking 20 on a single chest or door).  So, if at any point the DM says something like, "You walk down the halls for 5 minutes and come to a ...", they're back.  If the reinforcements from the last fight hit you after 6 rounds of break, they aren't.


----------



## gizmo33

Here's my "9:00-9:15" problem.

9:00-9:15:  PCs fight the Armageddon of all battles
9:16:  PCs rest up and are fully charged
9:17-9:25:  PCs fight another Armageddon battle
9:26:  PCs realize all monsters within a mile radius have been killed.  Push loot into portable hole.
9:27:  PCs teleport to next dungeon.  Rest in order to recover teleport spell.
9:28-9:30:  PCs fight another Armageddon battle
9:31:  PCs level up
9:32:  PCs teleport to King's castle, ask for new quest
9:33:  PCs adventure through next dungeon
9:34-10:00:  PCs fight a handful more Battles to End all Battles.  Level up a few more times.
10:01:  PCs teleport back to King.  Usurp throne.
10:05:  PCs heal after fighting King's army
10:06:  PCs retire.

I'll rename it the "9:00-10:06" problem to distinguish it from the 3E version.  

And basically, I think Mkhaiwati's post suggests pretty clearly to me that a big part of the problem has been the lack of a really sensible design.  It's just not realistic for PCs to camp for 8 hours in a dangerous place with nothing happening, and often with intelligent adversaries nearby.  And what's that sensible design?  That's versimilitude (and I'll keep using that word, ha!)

*And interesting that it be the case, given the issue raised lately by World of Warcraft*  One of the consistent things that I see from people defending the existence of table-top RPGs is that they hands-down do a better job of capturing a feeling of reality in the game world.  Why?  Because stuff happens and the DM actually remembers that it happens and adjusts the world accordingly, whereas the computer's ability to adapt is significantly limited.

So here, presumably, 4E is trying to develop something compelling and it's playing right into the hands of WoW.  Encouraging DMs to develop a response to the "9-9:15" problem that requires versimilitude appears to be taking a back seat to the instant gratification slug-a-thon that is my experience with most computer adventure games.  I'm not saying that people's 4E games will become human moderated computer games - I'm saying that the noose continues to tighten, so to speak, as the amount of game world elements that the players have to interact with is reduced.  I remember Neverwinter Nights being like this and it just didn't feel like DnD.


----------



## gizmo33

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> In that case, I'm sorry for the snarkiness.




Yea, I am serious.  In my defense there's actually an entire thread full of people asking this same question and AFAIK it has yet to be answered.  I almost chimed in and told them what you told me but I have no source for the information.  



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> "Per Encounter" is really just shorthand for "Most of the time, the PCs will be able to have all of these abilities available in every encounter."




I'd say the entirety of the rest of my argument has assumed this basic concept as you've explained it.  I wasn't quite sure that it meant a minute of rest, or 10 minute intervals, or whatever, but the effect was going to be the same thing.  I would say that the core of my objections are about the consequences of this design change - the consequences that you sum up in the "shorthand" description.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Why are you assuming that the PCs get to teleport?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yea, I am serious.  In my defense there's actually an entire thread full of people asking this same question and AFAIK it has yet to be answered.  I almost chimed in and told them what you told me but I have no source for the information.




Which one?  I'm sure I've posted it in every such thread so far (at least, all the ones currently on the first couple pages of the forum).

As far as the source goes, the "source" is the way the per-encounter resources work in the current WotC d20 rules systems that use them: the Book of 9 Swords (where the "1-minute-rest" works for one of the classes) and the Saga Edition of the Star Wars rules (where the per-encounter resources are Force Powers).

Note that the Bo9S has ... three? ... different versions on how you regain the resources (tied to the three per-encounter classes) and Saga has numerous ways to play with the recharge rate.  Since I'm more familiar with Saga than Bo9S, they're:


1 minute of rest refreshes your Force Power suite
A natural 20 on a Use the Force check refreshes your Force Power suite
A certain talents allow you to spend a full-round action to make a UtF check to return a single power to your suite
A different talent allows you to, 1 / encounter, return a power from a specific list to your suite
Spend a Force Point as a reaction to return a Force Power to your suite

Note that, in Saga, the only way to get Force Powers is to take the Force Training feat.  This feat gives you 1+Wis Bonus Force Powers each time you take it, and the feat can only be purchased as a character feat (it appears on no class's bonus feat list).

Thus, for the vast majority of Force Power users, they'll have somewhere between 4 and 8 Force Powers total.

I'd be very surprised if WotC designs 4th Ed in such a way as to increase that number too dramatically.  After all, if you've got so many per-encounter resources that you never need to use your at-will ones, well, then, why do you have the at-will ones? 



> I'd say the entirety of the rest of my argument has assumed this basic concept as you've explained it.




Let's say that the Wizard's per-encounter abilities are Magic Missile and Fireball.  (And his 1 / day resource is Really Big Fireball.)

How does this break the world?

It's one thing if Wish or Raise Dead were per-encounter resources, but I don't see that happening.


----------



## gizmo33

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Let's say that the Wizard's per-encounter abilities are Magic Missile and Fireball.  (And his 1 / day resource is Really Big Fireball.)
> 
> How does this break the world?




I have about a zillion previous posts that go through the various possibilities and what I think the problems are.   In this case, the scenario you describe I don't find to be substantially different from 3E.  Because of this, and the stated design goals in James Wyatt's post, I don't think it's a likely situation.  Between 9:00 and 9:15, the wizard is going to use his big fireball.   Presumably the DM has designed the basic encounter difficulty level for the adventure to assume that the party wizard has "Big Fireball".  As soon as he's out, they camp, for the same reasons as in the 3E case.  All that's different here is that instead of a crossbow, the wizard is using a bunch of equivalently powered spells.  I don't object to that at all (I actually hope that's what they do), I just don't think it's where Wyatt was going with his reasoning.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I have about a zillion previous posts that go through the various possibilities and what I think the problems are.   In this case, the scenario you describe I don't find to be substantially different from 3E.




I do.

In 3E, I'll have 1 Big Fireball per day, yes, just like in the putative 4E, but in 3E I also only have two Fireballs and 4 Magic Missiles.

In 4E, I'll have effectively unlimited Fireballs and Magic Missiles - and because I get them back so easily, I'll be tempted to use those before resorting to my Big Fireball.  Accordingly, I may not need Big Fireball until the BBEG shows up, whereas in 3E, it's likely I've had to use Big Fireball already just to make sure I've made it to the BBEG.

However, I think a more likely situation for 4E is that Magic Missile and Fireball are my per-encounter abilities and Knock or Phantom Steed are my per-day abilities.

Thus, while my overall effectiveness decreases once I've cast my Knock spell (I won't be unlocking any more doors), my combat effectiveness is ... effectively ... unchanged.


----------



## gizmo33

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Why are you assuming that the PCs get to teleport?




Teleport's existence has been assumed by people defending the proposed 4E design in their criticisms of the 3E resource management scheme.  If Teleport changes significantly, then I think it's fair to re-examine some of the "I can't attack sleeping PCs because they just teleport away" statements that have supported the 4E design.  Removing teleport just adds a few "and you walk for a couple of days" to my "9:00-10:06" example.


----------



## gizmo33

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In 3E, I'll have 1 Big Fireball per day, yes, just like in the putative 4E, but in 3E I also only have two Fireballs and 4 Magic Missiles.




Ok - so look at it this way:  Either magic missle+fireball gives you a typical fighter's combat ability, or it doesn't.  Now if it doesn't, it either isn't close, or it's close.  IF it isn't close, then it's basically no different than a crossbow in terms of resource management, a desperate ability of last resort (like Ray of Frost would be, for example).  

If a wizard's fireball/magic missle powers are comparable to the fighter's ability in combat, then how "big" can the "big fireball" really be, because you have fighter capability PLUS a big fireball whereas a fighter only has his fighter capability.

So there's always a fundemental trade-off to make with wizards.  The more significant the "big fireball" is, the more they'll have to pay for it in other areas (and it's not like they have a lot left to give up to balance it out).  The less significant it is, the more the situation (and problems) resembles that of an "all encounter-level resources" scenario.  (Edit:  and if it's Knock and Phantom Steed that are going to be the per day abilities, then effectively you're also at the "all encounter-level resources" scenario.)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Removing teleport just adds a few "and you walk for a couple of days" to my "9:00-10:06" example.




Right - but I imagine that your problem with the 9:00-10:06 example is the fact that the PCs can create such huge swathes of destruction in such a short period of time.  If you increase the amount of in-game time this takes, doesn't that solve the problem?



> If a wizard's fireball/magic missle powers are comparable to the fighter's ability in combat, then how "big" can the "big fireball" really be, because you have fighter capability PLUS a big fireball whereas a fighter only has his fighter capability.




Except the fighter also has "Blood Frenzy," which, 1 / day, allows him to do the equivalent of the big fireball (assuming that everything else is equal).

And, while, yes, using your at-will Simple Magical Ray Attack may not be all that much different than a crossbow in terms of overall effectiveness (less damage vs. touch attack), it is *vastly* different in that one is magical and the other is mundane.  People who sign up to play wizards generally want more of the former, in my experience.

In Saga terms, the Jedi can certainly attack with his lightsaber every round and can continue to do so as long as he has Hit Points.  However, using a properly timed and placed Force Slam to beat up a horde of battle droids / clone troopers / stormtroopers is *fun*.  And being able to do that once or twice in each combat is fun.  Being able to do that once a day is less fun (because it's less likely you'll use it or more likely that once you use it it'll be time to take a sizeable break).


----------



## Merlion

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> My experiences correlate exactly to it, at least as the "15-minute adventuring day" goes. The Vancian system is a guessing game that requires you to metagame somewhat and read the GM's mind for you to attempt to maximize your ability to affect the encounters.
> 
> You pick spells and hope that you have the right ones for the job. If you guess wrong, you're stuck with a boatload of useless magic until the next day. So your mage sits around and tries to hit things with a crossbow. Not fun.
> 
> OR You find that you're one of the major people that can affect the encounter. UNless you're loaded up exetnsively with all-mass-damage spells, you fire off three or four of those... and you're done. For the day at lower and mid-range levels. The rest of your spells, since they are discrete packets of 'spell' instead of scalable 'powers' either have no chance of affecting the encounter or will not do an appreciable amount of damage.. and you have to save some for the next thing and the next thing.
> 
> Two things now happen; either you spent your best spells in the encounter, or you saved them, hoping against hope that something else will utilize your strengths. That isn't really strategizing, it's guessing. At some point, though, the Vancian system means you'll be using that crossbow if the party keeps on going and having encounters. No-one wants to use the crossbow. You picked a wizard because you like tossing around flaming death or penetrating the minds of others, not playing a +0-BAB rogue.
> 
> So eventually (especially when you have a part that's heavy in spellcasters) the players are going to say 'OK, we go back to town' after the first room or two when they are out of their best spells. The problem actually increases at higher levels, because so much of what you have becomes useless due to high saves and SR and other factors. By the time you're 12th level, that first couple levels of spells might as well go away. And where do you have your greatest magic potential? Right: in the first couple levels of spells.
> 
> You can say 'NO, you keep going'. And the players will either say 'To heck with you, we're leaving' or hand you the character sheets since apparently you know what's best for the PC's than they do. Short game or no players. No fun for anyone.
> 
> Getting to do something fun every round isn't possible with the Vancian system and people are finally, finally starting to realize this and that is is possible to have just as much fun as the fighter or rogue - all that needs to change is the system.






  This is a lot of what I've been getting at, put better.


----------



## Merlion

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> See, this is my problem with your argument, Celebrim: It's too binary.
> I disagree that this is really the expected scenario. IME, even serious D&D tacticians back off only once _significant_ or _critical_ resources are expended. Your argument appears to be (and in fact you phrased it almost literally this way earlier in this thread) that "dropping to 99% of resources is going to force a rest." Again IME, the calculus is neither so extreme nor so linear. A party typically (again IME) retreats and rests when hp are low, buffs are exhausted, and the mages have no really decent combat capability to bring to bear. Add to that "essential defenses" like death ward, mind blank, and protection from spells. It's not a case of "Okay guys, Joe is down 10 of his 200 hp and I've got only one 9th-level spell left, so let's leave." A per-encounter system DOES address this issue by allowing critical or significant resources to be replenished to the point that the party doesn't feel the need to retreat.
> 
> Moreover, those players who feel a single cantrip or 5 hp damage to be sufficient reason to retreat and rest aren't going to be _worse_ off in a per-encounter/per-day hybrid; they're going to play it _exactly the same_. Thus, _at worst_, there's not an iota of difference between a per-encounter/per-day hybrid system and and a straight per-day system. The difference with a hybrid system, to use your example, is that a timed adventure like Ravenloft can be played with the understanding that the party will be weakened, _but not entirely gimped with respect to spellcasting and other essential party roles_, by the climax of the adventure.






  And this is one of the other things I've been getting at, also put better


----------



## gizmo33

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Right - but I imagine that your problem with the 9:00-10:06 example is the fact that the PCs can create such huge swathes of destruction in such a short period of time.  If you increase the amount of in-game time this takes, doesn't that solve the problem?




I have all kinds of problems.   This is one of those situations where the suggestion seems to me to be "redesign your campaign to fit a certain pattern", and unlike designing to deal with PCs camping outside the BBEGs fortress, this one isn't based on common sense but instead on the peculiarities introduced by the rule system.

Basically this will impact city-based and similar campaigns in strange ways, and ultimately having to enforce distance between objectives and limit the PCs ability to travel those distances quickly IMO is precarious solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.  To be fair, the bulk of the problems with PCs going from noob to god-like in the span of a year were introduced in 3E.  But this isn't helping.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Except the fighter also has "Blood Frenzy," which, 1 / day, allows him to do the equivalent of the big fireball (assuming that everything else is equal).




Well then the question is whether or not "blood frenzy/big fireball" is significant or not.  Recall that one of Wyatt's beefs is that every encounter but the 4th one in a given day is insignificant.  Well it wouldn't be insignificant if wizards simply used a crossbow instead of blowing all of their spells in the first three encounters.  But then DMs don't design things that way because encounters that require only "at will/encounter" level resources to overcome are not interesting.  Why this somehow is not the case in 4E continues to escape me.  

So to address your "blood frenzy" statement, it appears to me to now put the fighter in the same situation as the wizard (though it does address the balancing issue, but at this cost).



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And, while, yes, using your at-will Simple Magical Ray Attack may not be all that much different than a crossbow in terms of overall effectiveness (less damage vs. touch attack), it is *vastly* different in that one is magical and the other is mundane.  People who sign up to play wizards generally want more of the former, in my experience.




I am totally cool with this and if this was all that it was about I'd have nothing bad to say about this.  My probably is that, IMO, Wyatt is very clear what his issues are, and it's not a matter of mundane vs. magical flavor.  It's about resource management and AFAICT he wants to significantly change how it works in order to change the way DnD plays.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In Saga terms, the Jedi can certainly attack with his lightsaber every round and can continue to do so as long as he has Hit Points.  However, using a properly timed and placed Force Slam to beat up a horde of battle droids / clone troopers / stormtroopers is *fun*.  And being able to do that once or twice in each combat is fun.  Being able to do that once a day is less fun (because it's less likely you'll use it or more likely that once you use it it'll be time to take a sizeable break).




There are two aspects that I see to this paragraph.  One is the magical vs. mundane flavor issue.  I will readily agree that wizards should be able to use more magical effects during combat, even if it's crossbow powered stuff.

The other aspect is that it what you're saying can be interpreted as hinting at some sort of arms race.  IME adventure gaming has a tendency to raise the bar over time.  This is why Conan is considered 30th level by designers.  There's no real reason IMO why Conan isn't just 9th level except that everyone else has 9th level characters and even though you can kill scads of normal warriors at 9th level, and do things inconceivable in the real world, it's just not special anymore.  So if the power aspect of Force Slam is what is interesting, doesn't that just get taken for granted after a while?

The people that I know that like to play wizards prefer them over fighters because (for one reason) they'd rather have a few strategic, important effects on the adventure rather than the consistent slogging that fighters seem to offer.  By evening out the wizard's combat ability to consistent slogging, wizards aren't offering what they used to as a class.  Making wizard powers a daily resource makes it possible for wizards to evoke interesting effects at critical times - that one big fireball that saves the party.  A level of tactical decision making that I don't see in a "100% per-encounter" design.  The trade-off is having to camp, et. al.  I just don't see any way around this that maintains game balance.


----------



## gizmo33

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The rest of your spells, since they are discrete packets of 'spell' instead of scalable 'powers' either have no chance of affecting the encounter or will not do an appreciable amount of damage..




This, and much else of what he says, is not inherent in the Vancian system.  In fact, someone with exprience in 1E can tell you that a lot of the changes in 3E, in terms of save DCs that increase with spell levels, et. al. have significantly affected the situation.

Most of the "Vancian spells" of DnD increase their capabilities, range, damage, etc. by level.  All they need to do perhaps is to take a look at smoothing out the power curve so that a 1st level spell cast by a 20th level caster has some useful effect against a 20th level monster.


----------



## gizmo33

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> A per-encounter system DOES address this issue by allowing critical or significant resources to be replenished to the point that the party doesn't feel the need to retreat.




The day a "critical or significant" resource is replenished per encounter is the day that it stops being a critical or significant resource IMO.  Fighters, *right now* have the ability to swing a sword whenever they feel like.  That is not a calculation in anyone's decision to rest, nor is it significant in the DMs calculation of what challenges to throw at the players.  A fighter's ability is assumed, and so then it becomes *the other* resources that are the important ones.  Just try saying "but I can still swing a sword" the next time the party wants to rest.  

So what happens here?  That hitpoints (and by extension healing magic) become the only significant resource, or do even they respawn with a moment's rest?  If the party never feels the need to retreat, then basically all possible 4E outcomes boil down to victory or death?  

And in the event that healing magic is a "per encounter" ability, not having a cleric in your party is a death sentence, because the other party just shoots you full of arrows and then runs off and insta-heals while you wait for them to come back or hope you can find them before hand or kill their cleric.  I don't like the idea of having to put a certain character class in a fighting force in order to make it credible.


----------



## ruleslawyer

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The day a "critical or significant" resource is replenished per encounter is the day that it stops being a critical or significant resource IMO.  Fighters, *right now* have the ability to swing a sword whenever they feel like.  That is not a calculation in anyone's decision to rest, nor is it significant in the DMs calculation of what challenges to throw at the players.  A fighter's ability is assumed, and so then it becomes *the other* resources that are the important ones.  Just try saying "but I can still swing a sword" the next time the party wants to rest.



I see. So a significant ability is a per-day ability, and therefore a per-day system is required for there to be significant abilities replenished? Tautology, anyone?  


> So what happens here?  That hitpoints (and by extension healing magic) become the only significant resource, or do even they respawn with a moment's rest?  If the party never feels the need to retreat, then basically all possible 4E outcomes boil down to victory or death?



That "only" and "never" are again big red flags to your argument. 

In short, you appear to be missing the point, which is, in short, that a party of PCs under average expectations will forge onward until a _significant portion of its resources_ is expended. If a PC party can recover sufficient resources after an encounter to downgrade "significant portion" to "slight portion," then it will be able and willing to continue to additional encounters. 

For players with the (IMO, extreme bordering on absurd) tactics you're suggesting (i.e. "I've blown one powerful and non-replenishable spell! We must rest!"), a per-encounter/per-day hybrid doesn't change outcomes at all as opposed to a per-day-only scenario, so what's the difference? The point I'm making is that a) most groups IME don't play that way, and b) what Celebrim is (and now you are) proposing is *the most extreme set of players vis-a-vis resource conservation preference*. So, AFAICT, per-encounter abilities can only alleviate the five-minute-adventuring-day factor; my experience suggest that, in fact, they will provide a huge amelioration to that factor, and moreover will assist DMs and PCs greatly in planning and dealing with time-sensitive scenarios, respectively.


----------



## Doug McCrae

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 9:00-9:15:  PCs fight the Armageddon of all battles
> 9:16:  PCs rest up and are fully charged
> 9:17-9:25:  PCs fight another Armageddon battle
> 9:26:  PCs realize all monsters within a mile radius have been killed.  Push loot into portable hole.
> 9:27:  PCs teleport to next dungeon.  Rest in order to recover teleport spell.
> 9:28-9:30:  PCs fight another Armageddon battle
> 9:31:  PCs level up
> 9:32:  PCs teleport to King's castle, ask for new quest
> 9:33:  PCs adventure through next dungeon
> 9:34-10:00:  PCs fight a handful more Battles to End all Battles.  Level up a few more times.
> 10:01:  PCs teleport back to King.  Usurp throne.
> 10:05:  PCs heal after fighting King's army
> 10:06:  PCs retire.



Much the same is possible in 3e, but occurring over days rather than hours. In fact beginning the game at 1st level and hitting 20th after six months is a noted problem.

Also your example assumes teleport is a 'per encounter' ability which seems highly unlikely.

In superhero games, which often have 'at will' abilities I've only seen the above happen once, a campaign where there was no downtime. It was a GM mistake, which the players eventually complained about.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In 3E, I'll have 1 Big Fireball per day



I really hope that's the name of the ability in 4e, not some cr@p like 'fiery strike'. 

The sudden feats from Complete Arcane were one use per day. I used to play a wizard with Sudden Maximise, which I often did use with fireball, giving me  '1 Big Fireball' per day. Similar to 4e.


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'm saying that the noose continues to tighten, so to speak, as the amount of game world elements that the players have to interact with is reduced.





And that, in a nutshell, is my biggest complaint about 3.X as well (a major component of my Sense of Wonder threads).


----------



## gizmo33

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I see. So a significant ability is a per-day ability, and therefore a per-day system is required for there to be significant abilities replenished? Tautology, anyone?




Significant in terms of resource management.  As far as "Tautology" goes, I'm putting things into two categories, "significant" and "less so".  You may or may not agree with my classifications, but your idea here that there is a logic problem completely escapes me.  

"I see.  So balls are round, and therefore something has to be a ball to be round."  Not only is that not what I'm saying, I'm not sure it's a tautology.  



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> That "only" and "never" are again big red flags to your argument.




I was hoping the "IF"s would be big red flags too.  At times I'm trying to talk about different scenarios to try to pin down exactly how you guys see this working.



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> In short, you appear to be missing the point, which is, in short, that a party of PCs under average expectations will forge onward until a _significant portion of its resources_ is expended. If a PC party can recover sufficient resources after an encounter to downgrade "significant portion" to "slight portion," then it will be able and willing to continue to additional encounters.




If that really were the point then why's the word "retreat" in there?  There are parts of what you're saying that don't match what you're now saying the point is.  In any case, at worse I'm just simply not addressing what you're saying.  I don't have an issue with what you're saying the current point is, seems pretty sensible - though I do think that Celebrim is saying pretty much the same thing and this is really down to a case of what you think is "significant".  



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> For players with the (IMO, extreme bordering on absurd) tactics you're suggesting




I'm not suggesting any tactics.  In fact I don't really recognize what you say I'm saying, maybe you're getting mine and Celebrim's posts confused.   I am interested in one thing you've said, and it has a bearing on my concern - and that is:  you say that you're exprience shows you that the per-encounter thing alleviates the 9:00-9:15 problem.  What experience?  Is this the Star Wars system?


----------



## Raven Crowking

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I see. So a significant ability is a per-day ability, and therefore a per-day system is required for there to be significant abilities replenished? Tautology, anyone?




You miss the point (at least as I understand it).  The problem with the 9-9:15 adventuring day is that adventurers rest as soon as they use their significant resources.  A significant resource, therefore, is any resource that is not always available.  Anything that can be done at will, or per encounter, is still available, and hence insignificant when determining when you ought to pack your bags and go home.  Like the fighter's ability to swing a sword, it doesn't have to be taken into account.

Moreover, the more things "reset" after each encounter, the more encounters have to be ramped up in order the challenge the "reset" party.  Only those resources that are expended and not reset actually impact the party in any real way, so only those resources are significant.  Just as dozens of people now skip the 10 goblins attacking the 10th level fighter because it has no effect on the outcome of the adventure, dozens of people will skip any fight that only uses "reset" resources.

And, yes, that does impossible to argue away rationally.

In my own houserules, I use the VP/WP varient.  VP reset at a rate of LVL + Con bonus/minute, with full reset after 10 minute's rest.  Hence, the only damage that "matters" is WP damage.  In that varient, of course, the chance of taking significant damage is always present, and if the chance of losing significant resources is always present, that is a good thing.  The full reset time is there to make a decision point -- do we rest and risk another encounter (i.e., wandering monster) or press on?

In any event, Gizmo33 hasn't missed your point that "a party of PCs under average expectations will forge onward until a _significant portion of its resources_ is expended."  He is, rather, saying that your definition of a "significant portion" is incorrect because it relies on the idea of insignificant resources being considered significant.

RC


----------



## Henry

Dough, I figured your post was a good one to highlight some of my thoughts on the issue:



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Much the same is possible in 3e, but occurring over days rather than hours. In fact beginning the game at 1st level and hitting 20th after six months is a noted problem.




I think a lot of people's concerns are changing that to "1st to 20th after one afternoon", which hopefully will be avoided by more than just downtime. As it is now, the downtime is forced by the recharge time, and added to it by the DM and players as they see fit. If a group maintains 80% of their resources (a quote I remember in one of the blogs, I think) then there's nothing to stop them from clearing Undermountain not in a month, but in a day, in theory. Just WHAT those "per day" resources still are, and if Hit points and healing are two of them, is the important part.



> Also your example assumes teleport is a 'per encounter' ability which seems highly unlikely.




At this point, no one put the testers and designers know for sure. I'm hoping it's closer to that "per encounter" system in Unearthed Arcana, because then you at least have things like teleport, plane shift, and miracle as "per day" still. (Or to be precise, per 24 hours.)



> In superhero games, which often have 'at will' abilities I've only seen the above happen once, a campaign where there was no downtime. It was a GM mistake, which the players eventually complained about.




I think that the changes are, once again, more about insulating game play from bad DMs, since there seem to be more bad and mediocre DMs in this world than good DMs, according to this forum and WotC's. I can sympathize, but I also think there's only so much insulating one can do; ultimately, you can make a system unusable by trying to protect it too much.

One good thing - the "per encounter" setup (as described in previous products) is designed in such a way that the recharge mechanism can be altered by a group to suit their needs. If one extended that "per minute" to "per 10 minutes" for example, or "per hour", then time-critical adventures stay viable, resources can run out on someone if they spend them too quickly, and you still preserve the ability to have 3 or 5 or even 10 significant encounters in a day.


----------



## med stud

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> *And interesting that it be the case, given the issue raised lately by World of Warcraft*  One of the consistent things that I see from people defending the existence of table-top RPGs is that they hands-down do a better job of capturing a feeling of reality in the game world.  Why?  Because stuff happens and the DM actually remembers that it happens and adjusts the world accordingly, whereas the computer's ability to adapt is significantly limited.
> 
> So here, presumably, 4E is trying to develop something compelling and it's playing right into the hands of WoW.  Encouraging DMs to develop a response to the "9-9:15" problem that requires versimilitude appears to be taking a back seat to the instant gratification slug-a-thon that is my experience with most computer adventure games.  I'm not saying that people's 4E games will become human moderated computer games - I'm saying that the noose continues to tighten, so to speak, as the amount of game world elements that the players have to interact with is reduced.  I remember Neverwinter Nights being like this and it just didn't feel like DnD.




How a game will be paced doesn't have anything to do with Vancian magic or abilities per encounter; just because you can keep fighting indefenitly (as a magic user) doesn't mean that you have to do it or that DMs will be hypnotized into bringing constant fights against the PCs. 9:00-10:15 problem could be reproduced in 3.5 but over a week or month instead if you felt like it. Systems aren't hard to break if you really are trying.

This seems to be more of an issue with what style you are used to and what you prefer. Some people welcome these changes because they didn't like the old way, others hate it (understandeably) because official support for their prefered way of playing is going away.

I don't get the complains against what you call "instant gratification- etc". With the proposed system as it looks it means that you can access more tactical options per combat without thinking ahead as much as earlier. That doesn't mean that you can stop thinking and mindlessly bash away, it means that the strategic dimensions of the game changes and as long as the DM can keep up with it it doesn't have to be easier or harder, just different.



> I'm saying that the noose continues to tighten, so to speak, as the amount of game world elements that the players have to interact with is reduced.  I remember Neverwinter Nights being like this and it just didn't feel like DnD.




I don't understand what this has to do with the rules. Unless I missed something it is up the DM and players how much interaction that is necessary with game world elements.


----------



## Rakin

> 9:00-9:15: PCs fight the Armageddon of all battles
> 9:16: PCs rest up and are fully charged
> 9:17-9:25: PCs fight another Armageddon battle
> 9:26: PCs realize all monsters within a mile radius have been killed. Push loot into portable hole.
> 9:27: PCs teleport to next dungeon. Rest in order to recover teleport spell.
> 9:28-9:30: PCs fight another Armageddon battle
> 9:31: PCs level up
> 9:32: PCs teleport to King's castle, ask for new quest
> 9:33: PCs adventure through next dungeon
> 9:34-10:00: PCs fight a handful more Battles to End all Battles. Level up a few more times.
> 10:01: PCs teleport back to King. Usurp throne.
> 10:05: PCs heal after fighting King's army
> 10:06: PCs retire.




Sounds like WoW on crack.


----------



## Rel

Henry said:
			
		

> Dough,




Henry I'd like to ask you not to call other members of the boards fat.  Thank you.


----------



## Imaro

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So what happens here?  That hitpoints (and by extension healing magic) become the only significant resource, or do even they respawn with a moment's rest?  If the party never feels the need to retreat, then basically all possible 4E outcomes boil down to victory or death?






			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In Saga terms, the Jedi can certainly attack with his lightsaber every round and can continue to do so as long as he has Hit Points.  However, using a properly timed and placed Force Slam to beat up a horde of battle droids / clone troopers / stormtroopers is *fun*.  And being able to do that once or twice in each combat is fun.  Being able to do that once a day is less fun (because it's less likely you'll use it or more likely that once you use it it'll be time to take a sizeable break).




I wanted to comment on these two posts.  I bought Star Wars SE and have found a problem, at least IMHO, with the whole replenishing encounters, and it is exactly what gizmo33 states above.  With very little resources to waste, the "mook" encounters serve no purpose but scenery with the most risk coming from random occurences like max damage rolled or a critical hit on the players...otherwise these encounters really require very little tactical thought or strategy to beat.  In essence my players(mostly jedi and one soldier) threw hella force powers at the "mooks" and obliterated them as long as they're initiative was high enough.  They didn't have to worry at all about resource management since, as long as they lived, they'd be a-ok(all their power refreshed in the next encounter).

  While the "Big Bad" encounters require tactics and strategy, it really becomes an all or nothing type thing with the encounters.  If you waste your resources without thought on the BB encounter, then you'll probably die.  It's a little jarring actually, since the two modes of play don't mesh or complement(in the case of teaching actual strategy with less dangerous encounters) very well.

This is something that kind of turned me off Star Wars(though there is still enough in the realm of streamlining that I would play it again).  I found the "mook" encounters a total bore as GM, and after enough play I think my players began to look at them as little more than an anoyance to get to the BB.  I guess this is great for Star Wars, ut I worry about it in D&D.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Just as dozens of people now skip the 10 goblins attacking the 10th level fighter because it has no effect on the outcome of the adventure, dozens of people will skip any fight that only uses "reset" resources.




I think you get my point exactly.  I'll add:  Take a BBEG's fortress guarded with goblin patrols.  In a 4E-type paradigm where everything is an encounter level resource, the fighter simply resets after each goblin encounter, and the effect that the goblins have had on his ability to combat the BBEG is nothing more than wasting a few minutes of his time.

Now vanilla 3E already has created some of this because the power curve is such that large groups of lower level opponents are much less significant than they were in earlier editions (thanks Great Cleave!)  Combine that with the complexity of managing more than a few opponents and it creates a situation where DnD is (or was) increasingly about fighting against a boss-type monster.  This is a super-hero style game that doesn't suit my personal style, and the encounter-level situation could make it worse depending on which resources they assign to what level (I'm increasingly thinking that healing magic is going to be the make-or-break point for me)


----------



## hong

Henry said:
			
		

> I think a lot of people's concerns are changing that to "1st to 20th after one afternoon", which hopefully will be avoided by more than just downtime. As it is now, the downtime is forced by the recharge time, and added to it by the DM and players as they see fit. If a group maintains 80% of their resources (a quote I remember in one of the blogs, I think) then there's nothing to stop them from clearing Undermountain not in a month, but in a day, in theory. Just WHAT those "per day" resources still are, and if Hit points and healing are two of them, is the important part.




Undermountain and similar huge megadungeons are contrived places to begin with. If the group wants to tackle such a dungeon and arrive at a contrived conclusion, I see no problem in letting them do that. Heck, people have been doing it already for years: NWN's Hordes of the Underdark expansion can see you going from 18th to 30th level in about 20 hours real-time, which translates to 100 hours game time IIRC.

Conversely, if people DON'T want to get to 20th level in a week, then it's well within the DM's rights to say "you finish this adventure at 5th level. Six months later...". Just like right now, if people don't want to get to 20th level in a month.




> One good thing - the "per encounter" setup (as described in previous products) is designed in such a way that the recharge mechanism can be altered by a group to suit their needs. If one extended that "per minute" to "per 10 minutes" for example, or "per hour", then time-critical adventures stay viable,




I've already refuted this objection. Whyfor you keep parroting it, Henry?

Ah, I have it. You're thinking of "time critical" as meaning the PCs have hours in which to finish a task. They start at 9 am, and have to get out by 5 pm. A time-critical adventure with a heavy emphasis on per-encounter abilities will be more likely to be counted in MINUTES, where every round counts. You can spend time hunting down the last few orcs who ran away, or you can get on with the mission. Which is as it should be. In a time-critical adventure, the critical resource should be... time.

(And no, it doesn't have to be hard to keep track of time. It can be as simple as keeping track of the total rounds spent in combat, and if it goes above a certain number, the party loses. It's an abstract solution, but if handled well, the players never have to notice.)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imaro said:
			
		

> It's a little jarring actually, since the two modes of play don't mesh or complement(in the case of teaching actual strategy with less dangerous encounters) very well.





This is, IMHO, the 3.X problem all over again.

3.X is a great system, if you play it in the same way that you would play 1e or 2e.  However, 3.X doesn't reward that sort of play mechanically.  Instead, it rewards play with a 15 minute adventuring day, lots of buffs, and all sorts of assorted problems that have sprang up specifically (IMHO) because the designers didn't understand what sort of play they were rewarding when the rules were being written.

It takes some time to realize that a new edition rewards different sorts of play, so it "shines" at first in initial playtest, and then the problems appear a year or more down the road, when the players have learned what the "winning" strategies are.

It is my opinion that a game designer should first ask "What are players intended to do?" and then "What incentives can I give them to do that?" _*before*_ asking "What is fun?"  Simply put, it is easier to make a game with clear goals, and incentives to follow those goals, fun than it is to make players do your "fun" stuff if they are rewarded for doing something else entirely.

Again, this is IMHO, and YMMV.

RC


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> I wanted to comment on these two posts.  I bought Star Wars SE and have found a problem, at least IMHO, with the whole replenishing encounters, and it is exactly what gizmo33 states above.  With very little resources to waste, the "mook" encounters serve no purpose but scenery with the most risk coming from random occurences like max damage rolled or a critical hit on the players...otherwise these encounters really require very little tactical thought or strategy to beat.  In essence my players(mostly jedi and one soldier) threw hella force powers at the "mooks" and obliterated them as long as they're initiative was high enough.  They didn't have to worry at all about resource management since, as long as they lived, they'd be a-ok(all their power refreshed in the next encounter).
> 
> While the "Big Bad" encounters require tactics and strategy, it really becomes an all or nothing type thing with the encounters.  If you waste your resources without thought on the BB encounter, then you'll probably die.  It's a little jarring actually, since the two modes of play don't mesh or complement(in the case of teaching actual strategy with less dangerous encounters) very well.
> 
> This is something that kind of turned me off Star Wars(though there is still enough in the realm of streamlining that I would play it again).  I found the "mook" encounters a total bore as GM, and after enough play I think my players began to look at them as little more than an anoyance to get to the BB.  I guess this is great for Star Wars, ut I worry about it in D&D.




I think that serves to underline that each fight should be interesting in its own right, rather than just being "mook" or "BBEG". Maybe the mooks have something the PCs need; maybe they're guarding a chokepoint that has to be crossed; maybe they're sniping at the PCs from across a ravine, so the PCs can't just charge them; etc. Basically, each fight should have its own purpose for being; it should never be just to deplete resources.


----------



## gizmo33

med stud said:
			
		

> I don't understand what this has to do with the rules. Unless I missed something it is up the DM and players how much interaction that is necessary with game world elements.




The rules determine what it is that you need to do to be successful.  In most people's campaigns I don't have to worry about starving because no one really keeps track of food.  This means I don't really have to worry about supplies and supply lines and such.  IRL if I were going to march around in the jungle for a month I'd have to have all kinds of supplies, which means people to carry them and the appropriate social network needed to hire them, etc.  In a typical DnD game, me and my three friends can just head out into the woods and dispense with dealing with NPCs.  The realistic circumstances of the real world keep me immersed in it and forces me to figure out my environment (the "NPCs" and places so to speak).

Then again I'm not saying necessarily that bartering with merchants in order to buy talcum powder because your DM has some sort of weird "jungle rash" rules is all that heroic or interesting when it comes to gaming.  There's a sweet spot though, and the more of these versimilitude things you dispense with, the less real game reason that the PCs have to interact with the world, short of just killing things and taking their stuff.  Roleplayers will interact with NPCs as a hobby, and DMs may impose some interactions by fiat, but the game framework justification for doing this won't be there.


----------



## FickleGM

I suddenly wonder what sort of material component rules will be in place for 4e.  If they stick with the 3.x material component pouch version, then with the exception of spells that require rare components, there will be no real depletion of magical resources, so long as the party has a minute to rest.

If, on the other hand, a spells components are tracked like ammo, then there will be at least some form of resource depletion (for at least some spells).  This would remove some of the sting, in my opinion, while still giving a per encounter model (which, I like more than dislike).


----------



## Imaro

hong said:
			
		

> I think that serves to underline that each fight should be interesting in its own right, rather than just being "mook" or "BBEG". Maybe the mooks have something the PCs need; maybe they're guarding a chokepoint that has to be crossed; maybe they're sniping at the PCs from across a ravine, so the PCs can't just charge them; etc. Basically, each fight should have its own purpose for being; it should never be just to deplete resources.




How does that in any way make the fight more interesting.  If I know I can use Force Push 2x in the encounter and I have three other jedi who can do it 2x as well...we Force push all of them over and over again until they're unconscious.  Again it becomes a simple question of overwhelming them quickly.  Force Slam affects up numerous targets.

Guarding a choke point....Force slam em and soldier picks off the rest.
sniping from across a ravine....Force slam(with Distant power technique) em and soldier snipes back.
They have something we need...Force slam and pick off the rest, then take it.

I'm missing your point.  The problem is that you're going to find a per-encounter ability that works, and the fact that it can be replenished without thought, makes most encounters a given with very little thought to strategy or tactics.  This is boring.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Then again I'm not saying necessarily that bartering with merchants in order to buy talcum powder because your DM has some sort of weird "jungle rash" rules is all that heroic or interesting when it comes to gaming.  There's a sweet spot though, and the more of these versimilitude things you dispense with, the less real game reason that the PCs have to interact with the world, short of just killing things and taking their stuff.  Roleplayers will interact with NPCs as a hobby, and DMs may impose some interactions by fiat, but the game framework justification for doing this won't be there.




Good! The less of the s*mul*tionist baggage from 3E remains, the better.


----------



## Geron Raveneye

hong said:
			
		

> I think that serves to underline that each fight should be interesting in its own right, rather than just being "mook" or "BBEG". Maybe the mooks have something the PCs need; maybe they're guarding a chokepoint that has to be crossed; maybe they're sniping at the PCs from across a ravine, so the PCs can't just charge them; etc. Basically, each fight should have its own purpose for being; it should never be just to deplete resources.




Heh, I agree.   You can also extend this to characters and say "each character's actions should have its own motivation, and not just be a matter of resources and strategy". Which would, incidentally, pretty much eliminate this weird "Start at 9, encounter at 9:15, rest at 9:30" problem that is assigned to 3.X and that has never cropped up in any of my 3.X games, which is why it has me scratching my head where the heck that came from in the first place.


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> How does that in any way make the fight more interesting.  If I know I can use Force Push 2x in the encounter and I have three other jedi who can do it 2x as well...we Force push all of them over and over again until they're unconscious.  Again it becomes a simple question of overwhelming them quickly.  Force Slam affects up numerous targets.
> 
> Guarding a choke point....Force slam em and soldier picks off the rest.
> sniping from across a ravine....Force slam(with Distant power technique) em and soldier snipes back.
> They have something we need...Force slam and pick off the rest, then take it.
> 
> I'm missing your point.  The problem is that you're going to find a per-encounter ability that works, and the fact that it can be replenished without thought, makes most encounters a given with very little thought to strategy or tactics.  This is boring.



 The point is, you are doing the fight _for a reason_, so it's not just a meaningless encounter. If you can get it over and done with quickly, then great. More power to you for your tactical nous. Besides:

- Your examples just might point to force push being the problem, not the mooks as such.

- Maybe your GM needs to use tougher mooks.


----------



## Imaro

hong said:
			
		

> The point is, you are doing the fight _for a reason_, so it's not just a meaningless encounter. If you can get it over and done with quickly, then great. More power to you for your tactical nous. Besides:
> 
> - Your examples just might point to force push being the problem, not the mooks as such.
> 
> - Maybe your GM needs to use tougher mooks.




I'm talking about the fight itself being interesting from both a player and GM perspective, you know requiring thought and planning.  No the power isn't the problem, because force lightning can be used the same way, as well as a few others(I only used it as an example because it came to mind first.)

I was the GM, and I followed the encounter guidelines and used the pre-made NPC stormtroopers in the book...so maybe this type of system has some quirks that the designers should be aware of and think about for 4e.


----------



## hong

To give a bit more background, the last campaign I ran was for a Bo9S-heavy group. 1 warblade, 1 swordsage, 1 crusader, 1 homebrew archer, 1 "geomantic channeler" (tweaked dragon shaman). All 10th level.

No spellcasting, almost no per-day abilities. I certainly never ran into the problem of supposedly-boring fights because abilities refreshed easily. That's because each fight had stakes that were significant, or took place in a new and interesting location, or there was a significant risk of people being killed if they got overconfident (it's quite possible for a bunch of CR 8 monsters to take down even a 10th level warblade, if he gets isolated). It's not that hard.


----------



## Geron Raveneye

hong said:
			
		

> To give a bit more background, the last campaign I ran was for a Bo9S-heavy group. 1 warblade, 1 swordsage, 1 crusader, 1 homebrew archer, 1 "geomantic channeler" (tweaked dragon shaman). All 10th level.
> 
> No spellcasting, almost no per-day abilities. I certainly never ran into the problem of supposedly-boring fights because abilities refreshed easily. That's because each fight had stakes that were significant, or took place in a new and interesting location, or there was a significant risk of people being killed if they got overconfident (it's quite possible for a bunch of CR 8 monsters to take down even a 10th level warblade, if he gets isolated). It's not that hard.




And the lesson here, folks...a good DM can make an exciting game no matter what system is used, a bad DM while screw up any system he gets his hands on.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> I think that serves to underline that each fight should be interesting in its own right, rather than just being "mook" or "BBEG". Maybe the mooks have something the PCs need; maybe they're guarding a chokepoint that has to be crossed; maybe they're sniping at the PCs from across a ravine, so the PCs can't just charge them; etc. Basically, each fight should have its own purpose for being; it should never be just to deplete resources.




But who cares if you're being sniped at across a ravine?  I guess that means you've just made the mook encounter harder.  Not being able to charge?  Makes the mook encounter harder I guess.  I think it's notable that you're suggestions here involve increasing the difficulty of encounters.  This, IMO is one of the obvious results of the "per-encounter" resource design.


----------



## Imaro

hong said:
			
		

> To give a bit more background, the last campaign I ran was for a Bo9S-heavy group. 1 warblade, 1 swordsage, 1 crusader, 1 homebrew archer, 1 "geomantic channeler" (tweaked dragon shaman). All 10th level.
> 
> No spellcasting, almost no per-day abilities. I certainly never ran into the problem of supposedly-boring fights because abilities refreshed easily. That's because each fight had stakes that were significant, or took place in a new and interesting location, or there was a significant risk of people being killed if they got overconfident (it's quite possible for a bunch of CR 8 monsters to take down even a 10th level warblade, if he gets isolated). It's not that hard.




So...instead of addressing the problem in the rules, a DM should fix it himself...uhm ok.

The difference between D&D and Star Wars Saga ed. is that D&D doesn't use non-heroic classes ie "mooks".  Now the designers have already stated you will be able to fight 20 goblins at level 1 so I'm assuming the game will be geared more like SW than the overiding principle of 3.5 even with Bo9S.  It has been stated there will be mook rules as well, so I don't think actual play experience with D&D (is healing an ability that refreshes per encounter in 3.5?  It is in SW, as long as you've got the right power and enough vitality.) can be cited as closer to what 4e will be like than SW.  In fact, no spellcasting means you didn't have a healer so while they may have some per-encounter abilities...hp's were still a resource they had to manage in a wider sense.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> Good! The less of the s*mul*tionist baggage from 3E remains, the better.




That's a matter of opinion of course.  In this regard one person's simulationist baggage is another person's versimilitude, which, as I've said before, is an aspect of DnD that people used to point out as making it distinct from World of Warcraft.  At this point I'm not sure that any of your examples of what constitutes an "interesting encounter" in DnD can't be done better in WoW.


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> So...instead of addressing the problem in the rules, a DM should fix it himself...uhm ok.




Huh?



> The difference between D&D and Star Wars Saga ed. is that D&D doesn't use non-heroic classes ie "mooks".




I had mooks too. In one fight I had an 11th level necromancer summon up about 20 skeletons (which I knew perfectly well would be completely useless); in another fight, the group met 20 wights. The fun in mooks is not in the tactical challenge, but in the opportunities for badassitude. Think Legolas and Gimli competing to see how many orcs they could kill. For the wight encounter, I amused myself by betting on how many rounds it would take the PCs to kill them all (and move on to the two 10th level vampires, who were much more dangerous).

Now if you're going to meet 20 skeletons or wights in EVERY fight, then that could certainly become boring. But they also had fights with, for example, ~12 8th level thugs, who while individually outclassed, could still lay down some serious hurt. Just because a fight involves large numbers doesn't mean there's automatically no serious threat.



> Now the designers have already stated you will be able to fight 20 goblins at level 1 so I'm assuming the game will be geared more like SW than the overiding principle of 3.5 even with Bo9S.  It has been stated there will be mook rules as well, so I don't think actual play experience with D&D (is healing an ability that refreshes per encounter in 3.5?  It is in SW, as long as you've got the right power and enough vitality.) can be cited as closer to what 4e will be like than SW.  In fact, no spellcasting means you didn't have a healer so while they may have some per-encounter abilities...hp's were still a resource they had to manage in a wider sense.




Nope. Note the dragon shaman, and the crusader can also heal in a pinch. What's more, most of the time I only had one encounter per day so even the per-day stuff didn't matter.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> That's a matter of opinion of course.  In this regard one person's simulationist baggage is another person's versimilitude, which, as I've said before, is an aspect of DnD that people used to point out as making it distinct from World of Warcraft.  At this point I'm not sure that any of your examples of what constitutes an "interesting encounter" in DnD can't be done better in WoW.




You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Heh, I agree.   You can also extend this to characters and say "each character's actions should have its own motivation, and not just be a matter of resources and strategy". Which would, incidentally, pretty much eliminate this weird "Start at 9, encounter at 9:15, rest at 9:30" problem that is assigned to 3.X and that has never cropped up in any of my 3.X games, which is why it has me scratching my head where the heck that came from in the first place.





A campaign that rewards a certain style of play can avoid these problems (as well as the Christmas Tree effect, etc.) completely.  However, this is because the campaign offers rewards and incentives in addition to/in replacement of those in the game itself.  Players in general tend to take actions that they learn are rewarded.

This is why I said, earlier, 

It is my opinion that a game designer should first ask "What are players intended to do?" and then "What incentives can I give them to do that?" before asking "What is fun?" Simply put, it is easier to make a game with clear goals, and incentives to follow those goals, fun than it is to make players do your "fun" stuff if they are rewarded for doing something else entirely.​
If one of the goals of the designers is to limit the damage of mediocre DMs, then the problem that Gizmo33 (and others) are bringing up is an important one to consider.  The designers should have some idea of what their "ideal" D&D game is like, and build in rewards for playing in that way.

IMHO.

RC


----------



## ruleslawyer

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You miss the point (at least as I understand it).  The problem with the 9-9:15 adventuring day is that adventurers rest as soon as they use their significant resources.  *A significant resource, therefore, is any resource that is not always available.*



Looks like I'm not missing the point. You're just invoking the same tautology. A per-day resource _does not necessarily constitute a significant portion of the party's resources, especially in a system in which several critical resources reset after each encounter_. 


> In any event, Gizmo33 hasn't missed your point that "a party of PCs under average expectations will forge onward until a _significant portion of its resources_ is expended."  He is, rather, saying that your definition of a "significant portion" is incorrect because it relies on the idea of insignificant resources being considered significant.
> 
> RC



Except, of course, that he's attempting to claim that per-day resources automatically constitute a "significant portion of the party's resources" simply because they're per day. Doesn't work that way, especially once you shift a large number of resources over to the per-encounter paradigm.

But I'm not going to make the same argument more than twice, so I'm done here.


----------



## Raven Crowking

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Looks like I'm not missing the point. You're just invoking the same tautology. A per-day resource _does not necessarily constitute a significant portion of the party's resources, especially in a system in which several critical resources reset after each encounter_.





You say that, but Gizmo33 has an argument as to why the above is incorrect, and I have yet to see either a counter to his argument or an argument that supports the above statement.


RC


----------



## Mallus

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> There's a sweet spot though, and the more of these versimilitude things you dispense with, the less real game reason that the PCs have to interact with the world, short of just killing things and taking their stuff.



It's been my experience that players interact with the parts of the in-game world that they find entertaining, which, practically speaking, has little or nothing to do with whether those elements create a sense of verisimilitude.

Players will talk to, and engage with, interesting NPC's (and their attendant plot lines) as soon as the DM provides them with some to do that with.


----------



## Geron Raveneye

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A campaign that rewards a certain style of play can avoid these problems (as well as the Christmas Tree effect, etc.) completely.  However, this is because the campaign offers rewards and incentives in addition to/in replacement of those in the game itself.  Players in general tend to take actions that they learn are rewarded.




The simple problem I have with all this "resource management problem" posts right now is that I never ran adventures that were based around the simple entering and plundering of a dungeon outside of any other story element. The heroes are always under some time pressure, and can't simply go back to rest after every major encounter.

Best example I have comes from an L5R game, where a group of magistrates had to travel into the Shadowlands to return the Hare Clan sword. They simply didn't WANT to spend even more time in there, because the mere presence could already taint them if they were careless. They also wanted to get the sword and get back to the Clan castle because they knew there was a big Scorpion army on its way to raze the clan holdings, and they wanted to be beack before all they could return to were smoking ruins.

No group of people in their right mind that are on their way somewhere would rest after only one encounter if they could still make 8 hours of travel, either. And if you need to get somewhere within a few days, wasting 8 more hours because the wizard feels naked without 75% of his spells is not an option.

Hong said the most precious resource in many scenarios is time...which is a factor in most of the more "cinematic" stories, too. Classic dungeon crawling is a planned exploration of an underground area, with the equipment, companions and organization that comes with that. Heroic adventures are tension-filled and, in many parts, fast-paced affairs where the heroes simply can't sit down and rest again after the first fight, but have to press on to keep the evil cleric from sacrificing the princess to his dark god before the eclipse...or something like that.

It's where the character-playing aspect of D&D comes into play, in contrast to the stats-playing aspect that seems to be brought up more and more often when it comes to discussions about "per day" vs. "per encounter" abilities.


----------



## hong

Mallus said:
			
		

> It's been my experience that players interact with the parts of the in-game world that they find entertaining, which, practically speaking, has little or nothing to do with whether those elements create a sense of verisimilitude.
> 
> Players will talk to, and engage with, interesting NPC's (and their attendant plot lines) as soon as the DM provides them with some to do that with.



 That's my experience too. My players certainly didn't have any hesitation talking to NPCs whom I told them straight up were built using villain classes, and had abilities that PCs didn't have. No verisimilitudity here!


----------



## Celebrim

hong said:
			
		

> What's more, most of the time I only had one encounter per day so even the per-day stuff didn't matter.




Hong pwned himself.  

Actually, its been a rather hong on hong frag fest.  I've barely had time to fire a shot for all the red on red fire.


----------



## hong

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Hong pwned himself.




Tch.



> Actually, its been a rather hong on hong frag fest.  I've barely had time to fire a shot for all the red on red fire.




Tch, tch.


----------



## Celebrim

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Looks like I'm not missing the point. You're just invoking the same tautology. A per-day resource _does not necessarily constitute a significant portion of the party's resources, especially in a system in which several critical resources reset after each encounter_.
> 
> Except, of course, that he's attempting to claim that per-day resources automatically constitute a "significant portion of the party's resources" simply because they're per day. Doesn't work that way, especially once you shift a large number of resources over to the per-encounter paradigm.
> 
> But I'm not going to make the same argument more than twice, so I'm done here.




Which is fine with me, but I'd like to point out that whether or not RC missed your point, it doesn't really matter because it doesn't really impact the problem I (and presumably RC) has with the 'per encounter' system.  In the case that none of the per day resources are significant (not even hit points? healing? you highest level spell/most powerful manuever? teleport? raise dead?), that is to say that none of them have an important impact on your ability to win the next encounter, then for all practical purposes this is equivalent to a strict 'per encounter' system.  As I've already discussed, such a system would involve no real resource management at all, and such a system would therefore even more strongly encourage everything to be riding on one big encounter than the current system.  Granted, as I've already mentoined, you'd have less 'unease' because the imaginary rest period is more plausible, but there are other issues.  I haven't really discussed what is wrong with that yet, but lets do so now.

When resource management goes away as a skill (operational level as opposed to tactical level planning), then in order for any encounter to be 'interesting' it must involve considerable risk of tactical failure in and of itself.  What that means is that every 'interesting' encounter involves the possibility of player/party death.  Now, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with every fight being a 'real fight', but what it will tend to do is increase character fragility.  In other words, with every fight being a real fight that stretches character resources to the utmost, the margin of error is small and there is a serious risk that plain bad luck will decide the encounter.  One of the things that is true of 3rd edition play that wasn't true of 1st edition play is that characters don't get less brittle as they increase in level the way that they did in 1st edition.  In 1st, high level characters got hard to kill because they were relatively sheltered from bad luck.  Thier saves would get absolutely better and better (which is very different than merely relatively better), they would get more and more hit points relative to the amount of damage caused by blows from monsters, and so forth.  In 4e, it sounds like this problem is going to be even more extreme, and I still think that its going to lead to an even more extreme emphasis on the 'one big encounter' than you find even in 3rd.  

Anyway, if that is your preferred way of play (and it seem's to be for example hong's) then I'm fine with that you will probably be fine with 4e.  My point is simply that 4e seems to be trying to fix problems I don't have, and seems to be designed to not support a style of play I have been using for 20 years or more.  

Before I finish, let me head off one annoying potential counter argument, and that is that I've not defined 'interesting' correctly, and that interesting is determined by adventure design and whether it advances the story and the player goals.  The reason that this is annoying is that AFAIK, I'm the first one that brought up that line of argument in this thread so clearly I'm not unaware of that.  But, in the context which I first brought this up I was point out how the real fix to the problem was changes in adventure design, not changes in the mechanics and that as such, if you fixed the real problem then you didn't have the problem regardless of the mechanics you used, and conversely if you didn't fix the real problem (bad adventure design/DMing) then it wouldn't matter what mechanics you'd use.  Now, I have people on the other side of this argument suggesting, "Oh, yeah.  Well it doesn't matter if the mechanics don't fix the problem, you can just use better adventure design."  Well, duh, that's been my point all along.


----------



## hong

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Which is fine with me, but I'd like to point out that whether or not RC missed your point, it doesn't really matter because it doesn't really impact the problem I (and presumably RC) has with the 'per encounter' system.  In the case that none of the per day resources are significant (not even hit points? healing? you highest level spell/most powerful manuever? teleport? raise dead?), that is to say that none of them have an important impact on your ability to win the next encounter, then for all practical purposes this is equivalent to a strict 'per encounter' system.  As I've already discussed, such a system would involve no real resource management at all, and such a system would therefore even more strongly encourage everything to be riding on one big encounter than the current system.




You can have one big encounter. Or you could have multiple big encounters, each achieving a part of the overall objective.

You could fight all of these encounters in one day. Or you could pull back, do something after the first big encounter, and come back the next day (or the next week).

It's up to you. If each encounter does not depend on previous encounters for its tactical significance, then designing the overall adventure becomes so much easier, as does managing the consequences if the party deviates from the anticipated route.


----------



## Imaro

hong said:
			
		

> Huh?




Earlier you said your fights were interesting because of the reasons for the fights or the locations...yet not once because the interactions between opponent and PC's were tactically or strategically interesting.  What's unclear about this, it's a DM either creating story or uping the EL by increasing the danger, which wouldn't be necessary if the opponents and PC's actual fight was an interesting excercise.  It might add to it, but this shouldn't be the reason the fight is interesting.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> I had mooks too. In one fight I had an 11th level necromancer summon up about 20 skeletons (which I knew perfectly well would be completely useless); in another fight, the group met 20 wights. The fun in mooks is not in the tactical challenge, but in the opportunities for badassitude. Think Legolas and Gimli competing to see how many orcs they could kill. For the wight encounter, I amused myself by betting on how many rounds it would take the PCs to kill them all (and move on to the two 10th level vampires, who were much more dangerous).




I, as well as my players, can only take so much badassitude in this vein when playing D&D, YMMV of course.  When you're selecting appropriate encounters that should challenge the PC's it shouldn't be a thoughtless excercise in rolling dice.  In fact, like I said...it becomes boring and less memorable for me and my players.  Why? because it's not like LotR...at the table we are consciously aware that there is no risk, no excitement, no real challenge.  Once in a while these type of encounters are ok...but if this is the norm, well all I can say is there are games that do this type of badassitude alot better IMHO.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Now if you're going to meet 20 skeletons or wights in EVERY fight, then that could certainly become boring. But they also had fights with, for example, ~12 8th level thugs, who while individually outclassed, could still lay down some serious hurt. Just because a fight involves large numbers doesn't mean there's automatically no serious threat.




You're missing my point...in SW the regular "appropriate" encounters play out like the mook scenario.  It's only when you ramp up the power level above the PC's that it gets interesting, and then only because they have to actually think about how to use their powers in a dwindling resource fashion(hey, that's what 3e does on the large scale).  The problem with this is that they aren't going to get a chance to rest if they mess up...they're dead.  It's either succeed with what you have or die, without any type of inbetween where a player can assess after say 40% of his resources are gone and decide to rest.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Nope. Note the dragon shaman, and the crusader can also heal in a pinch. What's more, most of the time I only had one encounter per day so even the per-day stuff didn't matter.




Don't know about the Dragon Shaman...but are you talking about the Devoted Spirit maneuvers of the Crusader?  If so that ability isn't guaranteed and forces you to take certain risks or be in specific situations(ie like combat where you're probably taking damage as well)...it's a far cry from a pure healing ability that refreshes with every "encounter" or every minute.


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> Earlier you said your fights were interesting because of the reasons for the fights or the locations...yet not once because the interactions between opponent and PC's were tactically or strategically interesting.  What's unclear about this, it's a DM either creating story or uping the EL by increasing the danger, which wouldn't be necessary if the opponents and PC's actual fight was an interesting excercise.  It might add to it, but this shouldn't be the reason the fight is interesting.




I don't see why a "fight" should be treated as purely a tactical exercise, shorn of all in-game context or exogenous factors. Ultimately, fights are there because they're fun. I don't know anyone who derives ALL of their D&D enjoyment from the tactical side of things. Fights can be fun for reasons other than just exercising your wargamer gene.



> I, as well as my players, can only take so much badassitude in this vein when playing D&D, YMMV of course.  When you're selecting appropriate encounters that should challenge the PC's it shouldn't be a thoughtless excercise in rolling dice.  In fact, like I said...it becomes boring and less memorable for me and my players.  Why? because it's not like LotR...at the table we are consciously aware that there is no risk, no excitement, no real challenge.




What, so while reading/watching LotR, you weren't consciously aware that there was also no risk, no excitement, no real challenge?



> Once in a while these type of encounters are ok...but if this is the norm, well all I can say is there are games that do this type of badassitude alot better IMHO.




Eh. That doesn't mean D&D can't steal some of their schtick.



> You're missing my point...in SW the regular "appropriate" encounters play out like the mook scenario.  It's only when you ramp up the power level above the PC's that it gets interesting, and then only because they have to actually think about how to use their powers in a dwindling resource fashion(hey, that's what 3e does on the large scale).  The problem with this is that they aren't going to get a chance to rest if they mess up...they're dead.  It's either succeed with what you have or die, without any type of inbetween where a player can assess after say 40% of his resources are gone and decide to rest.




I'm not sure why an issue with what SW considers an appropriate encounter should be considered a problem when it comes to 4E.



> Don't know about the Dragon Shaman...




PHB2 class, can heal big loads of hit points per day, as well as remove disease, poison, curses, energy drain, etc etc.



> but are you talking about the Devoted Spirit maneuvers of the Crusader?  If so that ability isn't guaranteed and forces you to take certain risks or be in specific situations(ie like combat where you're probably taking damage as well)...it's a far cry from a pure healing ability that refreshes with every "encounter" or every minute.




Note that I often only had one encounter per day. Even when I didn't, I tended to just handwave any hit point loss anyway.


----------



## Dalberon

> The simple problem I have with all this "resource management problem" posts right now is that I never ran adventures that were based around the simple entering and plundering of a dungeon outside of any other story element.




I think a good deal of us fit into this catagory as playing the game for *only* the combat portion does not appear entertaining to me.  For those that are into the combat oriented game, I don't imagine their play will change much from editiion to edition (no down time or down time, they still are doing nothing but going from one combat encounter to the next...the amount of time will be determined as fluff or not by how the DM runs the game)

Like most 4e discussions these are seeming more like arguement for arguement's sake.


----------



## Henry

hong said:
			
		

> Ah, I have it. You're thinking of "time critical" as meaning the PCs have hours in which to finish a task. They start at 9 am, and have to get out by 5 pm. A time-critical adventure with a heavy emphasis on per-encounter abilities will be more likely to be counted in MINUTES, where every round counts. You can spend time hunting down the last few orcs who ran away, or you can get on with the mission. Which is as it should be. In a time-critical adventure, the critical resource should be... time.
> 
> (And no, it doesn't have to be hard to keep track of time. It can be as simple as keeping track of the total rounds spent in combat, and if it goes above a certain number, the party loses. It's an abstract solution, but if handled well, the players never have to notice.)




Exactly! Some of the most classic adventures of D&D's past used the "hour-by-hour" scenario, the most notable being "Dungeons of the Slave Lords", as well as many of the "We have to stop the marriage/occult ritual/signing of the treaty before noon!" type of adventures. Others not as classic have included murder mysteries, like the one from an early issue of Dragon, or -- heck, even shows on TV like 24 have used hour-by-hour frames of reference, rather than minute by minute, to make the viewer feel the pressure. Minute by minute can be used, but having it be the ONLY way to have a time-critical scenario is just too limiting, not to mention (in my opinion) giving NO chance to catch one's breath narratively. (I've seen some action sequences in movies cut like that, but it's usually just too frenetic usually to keep it up).

I'm also concluding that you and I may never see eye to eye on some of the issues, based on your comments on "simulationism" and things like Undermountain, which along with Castle Greyhawk I consider staples of the whole D&D experience - they might be contrived by real-world standards, but they aren't contrived in a world that lives, eats, breathes, and poops fantasy. What was that quote about thinking about fantasy too hard? 

I personally just don't see it as a good solution that if you assume it "contrived" then you aren't worried about "contrived" results coming from it. Narratively, I'm just too concerned with how "per encounter" classes are going to affect tropes that have been a part of the game for over thirty years. I'm willing to wait and see, but the answer lies in just how far they go "per-encounter" with it.


----------



## hong

Henry said:
			
		

> Exactly! Some of the most classic adventures of D&D's past used the "hour-by-hour" scenario, the most notable being "Dungeons of the Slave Lords", as well as many of the "We have to stop the marriage/occult ritual/signing of the treaty before noon!" type of adventures. Others not as classic have included murder mysteries, like the one from an early issue of Dragon, or -- heck, even shows on TV like 24 have used hour-by-hour frames of reference, rather than minute by minute, to make the viewer feel the pressure. Minute by minute can be used, but having it be the ONLY way to have a time-critical scenario is just too limiting, not to mention (in my opinion) giving NO chance to catch one's breath narratively. (I've seen some action sequences in movies cut like that, but it's usually just too frenetic usually to keep it up).




Eh. Roleplaying is an asynchronous medium, unlike TV and movies. You can take all the time you like in between scenes, assuming the DM isn't being a hardcase and enforcing some kind of realtime <-> game time relationship.



> I'm also concluding that you and I may never see eye to eye on some of the issues, based on your comments on "simulationism" and things like Undermountain, which along with Castle Greyhawk I consider staples of the whole D&D experience - they might be contrived by real-world standards, but they aren't contrived in a world that lives, eats, breathes, and poops fantasy. What was that quote about thinking about fantasy too hard?




Hong's 2nd law of fantasy: Thinking too hard about fantasy is bad.
Corollary: You can find a handwave for anything.
Rejoinder: Some handwaves are better than others.



> Narratively, I'm just too concerned with how "per encounter" classes are going to affect tropes that have been a part of the game for over thirty years.




You'll note that I'm not crying about the erinyes either.


----------



## Celebrim

hong said:
			
		

> You can have one big encounter. Or you could have multiple big encounters, each achieving a part of the overall objective.
> 
> You could fight all of these encounters in one day. Or you could pull back, do something after the first big encounter, and come back the next day (or the next week).
> 
> It's up to you. If each encounter does not depend on previous encounters for its tactical significance, then designing the overall adventure becomes so much easier, as does managing the consequences if the party deviates from the anticipated route.




I can have one big encounter. Or I could have multiple big encounters, each achieving a part of the overall objective.

I could fight all of these encounters in one day. Or, if the situation allowed it, I could pull back, do something after the first big encounter, and come back the next day (or the next week).

It is up to me.  Again, this is attempting to fix a problem I don't have.

Finally, if each encounter does not depend on previous encounters for its tactical significance, then designing the individual encounters becomes much harder, as does managing the consequences if the party has a string of bad luck (because each encounter was never intended in itself to fully stretch the party anyway).


----------



## Celebrim

hong said:
			
		

> INote that I often only had one encounter per day. Even when I didn't, I tended to just handwave any hit point loss anyway.




And the pwnage just continues.


----------



## gizmo33

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Except, of course, that he's attempting to claim that per-day resources automatically constitute a "significant portion of the party's resources" simply because they're per day.




This is not what I'm claiming at all.  I think it was understood that in the earlier context of what I was saying, 1/day powers are generally more powerful than per-encounter powers.  It makes no sense game balance wise for it to be the opposite, although it sometimes happens because of the haphazard way in which powers are accumulated (nor would I have it otherwise).  However, *it does not even support my point* to suggest the thing that I think we both think is wrong:  that 1/day powers are identical to powerful powers.  There's no reason for that, there's no reason for me to suggest it, and it doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying, though it does use alot of the same words.  I really think there's some confusion here.


----------



## hong

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I can have one big encounter. Or I could have multiple big encounters, each achieving a part of the overall objective.
> 
> I could fight all of these encounters in one day. Or, if the situation allowed it, I could pull back, do something after the first big encounter, and come back the next day (or the next week).
> 
> It is up to me.  Again, this is attempting to fix a problem I don't have.




Ah. This must be a new definition of "big" that this thread hasn't seen before. (I do hope you're not attempting to claim that resource attrition is no longer a part of the per-day paradigm.)



> Finally, if each encounter does not depend on previous encounters for its tactical significance, then designing the individual encounters becomes much harder,




Are you kidding?



> as does managing the consequences if the party has a string of bad luck (because each encounter was never intended in itself to fully stretch the party anyway).




If the party has a string of bad luck sufficient to kill someone, they can have exactly the same recourses available to them: raise, resurrect, etc. They can run away and fix the problem, and this will not affect the difficulty of later challenges.


----------



## hong

Celebrim said:
			
		

> And the pwnage just continues.



 Tch.


----------



## Imaro

hong said:
			
		

> I don't see why a "fight" should be treated as purely a tactical exercise, shorn of all in-game context or exogenous factors. Ultimately, fights are there because they're fun. I don't know anyone who derives ALL of their D&D enjoyment from the tactical side of things. Fights can be fun for reasons other than just exercising your wargamer gene.




Nice way to twist what I'm saying.  Let me clarify, no tactical and strategic combat are not the end all and be all of a good battle in D&D.  However if the tactics of the fight break down to the same thing over and over again(more likely when you have per-encounter abilities then per day abilities) it becomes more an excercise in tediousness IMHO.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> What, so while reading/watching LotR, you weren't consciously aware that there was also no risk, no excitement, no real challenge?.




The first time I read it...no I didn't know what was going to happen, and that's the honest truth.  I am an african-american who grew up on the southside of Chicago, an english teacher gave me the book to read, and I had never even heard of LotR, much less knew what was going to happen.  The movie...I liked some of  the visuals but the fights were meh as far as anticipation or excitment goes, because yeah I knew how it was going to turn out.





			
				hong said:
			
		

> Eh. That doesn't mean D&D can't steal some of their schtick.




Touche...but they need to make this clear in the DMG as far as advice for designing encounters, and(hopefully) avoid all encouters becoming either a breeze to or a win/die as the only type of binary end result to a challenging encounter.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why an issue with what SW considers an appropriate encounter should be considered a problem when it comes to 4E.




Uhm...because even the designers are now openly flaunting it as a "preview" of 4e so I'd rather throw my concerns out now and hope they're listening than get mad when the game is released even though I found issues with SW and chose not to say anything.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> PHB2 class, can heal big loads of hit points per day, as well as remove disease, poison, curses, energy drain, etc etc.




OK...wait, you said per day...I'm confused.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Note that I often only had one encounter per day. Even when I didn't, I tended to just handwave any hit point loss anyway.




So with one encounter per day and a handwaving of hit point damage...how can you honestly say there were no longterm problems.  Perhaps it's because in SW combats do go fast and you can run alot more per game time than I've experienced with D&D that the boredom and tediousness set in after awhile. The problem is WotC is claiming it will be the same way in D&D 4e.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> What, so while reading/watching LotR, you weren't consciously aware that there was also no risk, no excitement, no real challenge?




The difference between a movie and RPGs is that movies can manipulate your perception of risk whereas in RPGs the perception of risk is based much more on the numbers, and players tend to know alot about the numbers involved in any conflict.  There's no reason in the LotR movie that the audience can dismiss even a lone orc getting lucky with a crossbow and killing a PC - but the chances of that sort of thing in an RPG are so remote that it's never a serious consideration.  Aragorn being charged by a mean looking orc in a movie would be somewhat interesting, but the same thing in an RPG is not.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> Note that I often only had one encounter per day. Even when I didn't, I tended to just handwave any hit point loss anyway.




Yea, so why change the existing system to do something that you don't need to do anyway?  Folks that want to have big Armageddon battles can still do so and the per-day resources automatically become per-encounter resources.


----------



## gizmo33

Imaro said:
			
		

> It's either succeed with what you have or die, without any type of inbetween where a player can assess after say 40% of his resources are gone and decide to rest.




This was Gary Gygax's justification for the hit point mechanic IIRC.  He defended the lack of realism with the fact that it was a design goal of the game to not have every encounter be a life or death coin toss.  If this design goal has changed, why not just state this explicitly?  Then maybe we can dispense with the whole hit point mechanic and every sword swing just has a percent chance of killing you?


----------



## Celebrim

hong said:
			
		

> Are you kidding?




You are asking me this?  Isn't that your schtick?  If you can't tell whether I'm kidding or not, how is anyone going to tell whether hong is kidding or not.  

For the last three or four pages of this thread, I've been going, "Is hong being stupid, or is he just being hong?  Does me mean that, or is that his idea of funny?"

I decided to just stick with taking you seriously, despite the extreme ludicrousness of doing so.


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> Nice way to twist what I'm saying.  Let me clarify, no tactical and strategic combat are not the end all and be all of a good battle in D&D.  However if the tactics of the fight break down to the same thing over and over again(more likely when you have per-encounter abilities then per day abilities) it becomes more an excercise in tediousness IMHO.




Okay, I can see something in this. Playing a swordsage in AOW, I did sometimes fall into a routine where I open with a certain maneuver A, then maneuver B next round, maneuver C next round, etc. Still, the actual specifics of each encounter were usually different enough that fights were interesting. Sometimes maneuver A isn't enough to finish off the enemy, so I have to use maneuver B on him; sometime maneuver A misses; sometimes I have to run away because I'm getting pounded, etc.

If there are triggers in 4E that people can use to hinder opponents' powers, that might go some way to addressing this problem. Or even better, have different powers usable on different circumstances, eg you can only use X if you precede it with a move-and-attack; Y with a full-round action; etc.




> OK...wait, you said per day...I'm confused.




To clarify. The party consisted of 4 characters who had per-encounter abilities, and 1 who had per-day stuff. However, the impact of the per-day stuff was minimal.



> So with one encounter per day and a handwaving of hit point damage...how can you honestly say there were no longterm problems.




There were no longterm problems because resource attrition wasn't a big part of what made the fights interesting.


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:
			
		

> However if the tactics of the fight break down to the same thing over and over again(more likely when you have per-encounter abilities then per day abilities) it becomes more an exercise in tediousness IMHO.



Characters using a single tactic to the exclusion of others has more to do with the effectiveness/utility of that tactic, relative to the others in their bag of tricks.

Which means the problems lies in the tactic, not the interval.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yea, so why change the existing system to do something that you don't need to do anyway?  Folks that want to have big Armageddon battles can still do so and the per-day resources automatically become per-encounter resources.




Because I might want to have more than one Armageddon battle in one day, if the circumstances dictate that it would be reasonable to do so. And in fact, there were at least two occasions where I had 2 big stand-up fights in a day. The fact that I, personally, like to have isolated climactic encounters doesn't mean the system should be such that it allows only a choice of that, or a flurry of little ones.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The difference between a movie and RPGs is that movies can manipulate your perception of risk whereas in RPGs the perception of risk is based much more on the numbers, and players tend to know alot about the numbers involved in any conflict.  There's no reason in the LotR movie that the audience can dismiss even a lone orc getting lucky with a crossbow and killing a PC - but the chances of that sort of thing in an RPG are so remote that it's never a serious consideration.  Aragorn being charged by a mean looking orc in a movie would be somewhat interesting, but the same thing in an RPG is not.




If your sole metric of interestingness is tactical challenge, then yes. Thankfully, I also use other metrics in addition to tactical challenge.


----------



## Geron Raveneye

Just as a thought experiment, would it be possible to create a bridge between "per encounter" abilities and "per day" abilities by using the current system of magic with slightly different spells?

Imagine, for example, a 1st level spell called _Cantrip_ that has a duration of 1 hour/level and enables a caster to use any of the 0 level spells, 1/round and 1 at the same time only.

Or a _Magic Missile_ spell that isn't insta-hit but requires a ranged touch attack, has a medium range, a duration of 1 hour/level and allows a caster to create 1 force missile and fire it off as a standard action, causing 1d4+1 points of damage on a successful ranged touch attack? Maybe add an option that allows him to discharge 1 hour worth of missiles (600 if my math doesn't fail me) to create a burst effect that causes 1d4+1 points of damage to *every* creature in a 30' radius?

Would those spells be overpowering as 1st level spells? Would it change the current gameplay drastically? The caster still has to manage a spell slot as resource, but gets longer use out of it. A bit like the old _Melf's Minute Meteors_, only with a longer duration (1 hour vs. 1 round/level).

(Going to post this in the other threads about "per encounter" abilities, too, in case this here devolves into a "hong vs. the rest" slugfest again.  )


----------



## Mallus

Celebrim said:
			
		

> When resource management goes away as a skill...



A skill that's pegged to a relatively predictable schedule of threats, implicitly player-initiated, for the most part (the classic 'one more room' syndrome). That's my biggest beef with relying on resource management to provide a significant amount of the challenge. It tends to fall apart the more unpredictable things happen, when the campaign takes place in a more dynamic environment where trouble frequently kicks down the PC's door, Chandler-style. In which case minor ablative encounters are rendered meaningless, unforeseeable encounters leave the PC's unable to take meaningful actions, etc.

The 'resource management mini-game' ends up in either rote encounters or a guessing game. Which is why I much prefer systems where the challenge lies in _which_ meaningful action the player takes, not _if_ a player decides to perform one, or is saving him- or herself for later... 

Games with limited-to-no resources management (like M&M, which really only has a single multipurpose player resource, the Hero Point) can be just as tactically rich as management heavy one like 3.5.



> What that means is that every 'interesting' encounter involves the possibility of player/party death.



Not necessarily. You're leaving out 'defeat', which in no way needs to imply death, and the failure to achieve desired goals/objectives. 

When you have engaged players with some investment in the game world, then there's no need for death to on the line in order to make an encounter interesting.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:
			
		

> Characters using a single tactic to the exclusion of others has more to do with the effectiveness/utility of that tactic, relative to the others in their bag of tricks.
> 
> Which means the problems lies in the tactic, not the interval.




Uhm...read my earlier post.  The power Force Slam was purely an example.  

My problem isn't with Force Slam, it's with the fact that it can be used over and over again...there's no reason for real thought or strategy when you can bust the door down, unleash every force power you have in a bombardment and not worry about what will happen later.


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:
			
		

> My problem isn't with Force Slam, it's with the fact that it can be used over and over again...there's no reason for real thought or strategy when you can bust the door down, unleash every force power you have in a bombardment and not worry about what will happen later.



I don't know... there are games out there where the PC's have significant 'at-will' powers which still manage to be tactically rich & satisfying, like M&M (2e). Our campaign started back up again last week, and the session was one long, beautiful fight against Nazi occultists and the misguided Valkyrie who love them...

Maybe the per-encounter rules in Saga ed. are just not-so-good? Not an indictment of the whole approach? Or maybe, like any system more heavily weighted toward specific genre emulation (also like M&M 2e), it supposed to played in a certain way (ie, it's up to the player to provide balance, the mechanics don't necessarily enforce it).


----------



## hong

Mallus said:
			
		

> A skill that's pegged to a relatively predictable schedule of threats, implicitly player-initiated, for the most part (the classic 'one more room' syndrome). That's my biggest beef with relying on resource management to provide a significant amount of the challenge. It tends to fall apart the more unpredictable things happen, when the campaign takes place in a more dynamic environment where trouble frequently kicks down the PC's door, Chandler-style. In which case minor ablative encounters are rendered meaningless, unforeseeable encounters leave the PC's unable to take meaningful actions, etc.




You know, this is absolutely right. Many of the more memorable encounters I've had/run have been completely outside the context of the 4 encounters/day dungeoneering paradigm. The PCs are walking down the street, when ninjae attack! Or the group is at a ball, which degenerates into a melee (with much swinging off chandeliers). That sort of thing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

> Not necessarily. You're leaving out 'defeat', which in no way needs to imply death, and the failure to achieve desired goals/objectives.



That's a good point. Many D&D combats seem to focus on killing the monster/NPC or die trying. 

So far, the distinction has mostly been between time-critical and time-neutral encounters. 

But there are more types of encounters or adventures: 
Think of a hostage situation. It will take some time until the kidnappers will actually do something bad to the hostage. So, the clock is ticking, but on the "per encounter scale".
But once you are in the encounter where you meet the kidnappers with the victim, now the time is on the combat scale - It is really bad in such a scenario if this encounter is your typical big-boss" monster encounter, because this will mean that some of the villains will survive long enough to have a reasonable chance of killing the hostage. 
For have it work, the hostage guards must be "mooks" - it is now not a question if the characters will kill them at all, but it is a question if they can do it in time before any kidnapper gets to slit the throat of the poor hostage. 

This scenario is exciting and difficult without ever entering a long-term resource management, nor requiring a life or death scenario for the characters.


Addendum:
In D&D 3, the lower level / mook encounters serve as attrition. But does that mean that the individual encounter becomes more exciting because you lost some hit points and spells? Or does it just mean that the last encounter becomes more interesting, because you might or might not have enough or the right ones left then? 

If that is the case, is the fourth encounter worth the first "lame" three ones? 
Or wouldn't it be more fun if I had just some "fool around encounters" where players get to figure out their new cool abilities (warming up a bit), and then run into the meaty encounters that are all thrilling because you have to use your wits and all the (encounter-renewable) resources available to you?

How important is it that the resources that I have at my disposal during any specific encounter is based on my daily resource management (as opposed to the choices I made on character advancement, maybe).


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That's a good point. Many D&D combats seem to focus on killing the monster/NPC or die trying.
> 
> So far, the distinction has mostly been between time-critical and time-neutral encounters.
> 
> But there are more types of encounters or adventures:
> Think of a hostage situation.





Excepting, of course, that a system designed to handle the potentially lethal combats can also include mook combats (consider using CR 1 mooks against Lvl 8 PCs) whereas a system designed for mook combats can damage lethal combats (as demonstrated by Celebrim and Gizmo33).


RC


----------



## Celebrim

Mallus said:
			
		

> I don't know... there are games out there where the PC's have significant 'at-will' powers which still manage to be tactically rich & satisfying...




I've never denied that.  Per day or per encounter has no real impact on tactical richness (though it may have some impact on tactics, that's not the same thing).  

Everyone is familiar with the terms tactics and strategy.  Most gamers know the difference between the two.  What they may not know is that there is a level of planning between tactical and strategic commonly called 'operational'.  Operational level planning is principally concerned with what we'd call resource management.  It's about doing things efficiently with limited resources.  It's that operational level of play that is I think at risk.  In prior editions of the game, and distinctively in 1st edition, a 'mook' encounter still demanded high attention to tactics and still represented a 'threat' because of its potential impact at the operational level.  In efficiently handling a series of mook encounters would leave you unable to fulfill your strategic goal, because that final encounter against the bad guy which - in a straight up fight might be easy - would prove an 'encounter too far' due to either poor tactics in otherwise easy encounters you had no real chance of losing, or poor operational planning (you wasted important spells against minor obstacles).  

D&D has a 30 year history of that style of play, at its still supported if you choose to play the game that way even in 3rd edition, and now suddenly everyone is saying that is a boring way to play that shouldn't be supported anymore?  



> like M&M (2e). Our campaign started back up again last week, and the session was one long, beautiful fight against Nazi occultists and the misguided Valkyrie who love them...




And I repeat, the people who seem to have no problem with this are the people who seem to think that each session should have 'one long, beautiful fight'.  I have no problems with climatic, long, beautiful fights, but thats just one sort of challenge I like to throw at my players, or which, conversely, I enjoy as a player.  (After all, I always try to be the DM that I would like to have if I were a player.)



> Or maybe, like any system more heavily weighted toward specific genre emulation (also like M&M 2e), it supposed to played in a certain way (ie, it's up to the player to provide balance, the mechanics don't necessarily enforce it).




I'm worried that 4e is heavily weighted toward a specific genre emulation that is quite different from that I traditionally associate with D&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Over a decade ago I played in a 2e game in which we encountered many orc patrols while travelling through woods on the way to our objective. They were very same-y and afterwards I raised this with the DM. He said he was trying to recreate an experience he'd had in a previous game as a player, where the party was slowly whittled down through a war of attrition. Apparently it had been one of the most tense and exciting experiences he'd had in roleplaying. He was a very good DM, on the whole, so I'm guessing he had recreated things well. Problem is, I just found it boring.

So I'm thinking this challenge-by-attrition versus short term challenge issue is just a matter of taste. The James Wyatt quote really struck a chord with me. I don't want three out of four of the day's encounters to feel too easy. I want them all to feel like real challenges.


----------



## hong

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Most gamers know the difference between the two. What they may not know is that there is a level of planning between tactical and strategic commonly called 'operational'. Operational level planning is principally concerned with what we'd call resource management. It's about doing things efficiently with limited resources.




Until such time that my swordsage can use diamond nightmare blade every round, per-encounter will still imply limited resources.



> And I repeat, the people who seem to have no problem with this are the people who seem to think that each session should have 'one long, beautiful fight'.




... or two long, beautiful fights.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Operational level planning is principally concerned with what we'd call resource management.  It's about doing things efficiently with limited resources.  It's that operational level of play that is I think at risk.



Actions in combat. Per encounter abilities. Per day abilities. Money. Limited use magic items. Skill points. Feats. Other character options (which we are told will increase in 4e) such as the ranger's twf or missile path.


----------



## gizmo33

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Just as a thought experiment, would it be possible to create a bridge between "per encounter" abilities and "per day" abilities by using the current system of magic with slightly different spells?




Yes, what you're proposing (the hour long availability of 0 level spells and such) is something I would really like to see in the new version.  My issue has to do with Wyatt's stated design goals, and your suggestion doesn't really address his concerns AFAICT.  So I think it's unlikely that 4E will stop at just the changes you're suggesting if Wyatt's stated goals are a part of that system.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Actions in combat. Per encounter abilities. Per day abilities. Money. Limited use magic items. Skill points. Feats. Other character options (which we are told will increase in 4e) such as the ranger's twf or missile path.




That's why the impact of this design choice depends so much on what abilities are going to be at will, per encounter, and per day.  Also why I think WotC should example where their thinking is going with this one.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's why the impact of this design choice depends so much on what abilities are going to be at will, per encounter, and per day.  Also why I think WotC should example where their thinking is going with this one.



It's by far the most significant change in 4e. Which is probably why it's received so much discussion.


----------



## Celebrim

hong said:
			
		

> Until such time that my swordsage can use diamond nightmare blade every round, per-encounter will still imply limited resources.




Absolutely.  But, what you fail to notice is that it implies limited _tactical_ resources.  

Imagine instead of an RPG, you are playing a tactical level wargame along the lines of ASL.  Suppose you have a series of combat simulations.  If in each combat, you only have so many grenades, rounds of ammo, or bazooka rounds, then you still have limited resources.  But, if you come into each combat with the same number of grenades, rounds of ammo or bazooka rounds (which may in some cases be realistic) and even soldiers, then the game is ignoring the operational level of play (there is a helicopter which flies in and restocks the platoon after every fire fight).  That can be alot of fun.  Operational book keeping can be tedious, and it can (as you noted) be hard to design good balanced operational scenarios.

But sometimes its fun to say that you only have a limited store of supplies that 'the helicopter' can bring in, and once they are gone then they are gone (or perhaps that you only recieve resupply at a limited rate).  This turns the series of combat simulations into whats known in wargaming as a campaign (or mini-campaign depending on the scale).  The game is still just as tactically rich as before, but now you have to balance tactical decisions (throwing this grenade would be helpful right now) against operational considerations (I won't have the grenade later).  

The thing is, every edition of D&D has supported tactical play just fine.  But now it seems like we are hearing a group of people saying that operational play is 'badwrongfun' and should not be supported.

By your own admission you already 'hand wave' operational considerations, so the style of play you want to have is handled simply by treating existing rules as optional and ignoring certain rules.  And that's fine, and you are the DM and should be able to make that call.  But its much easier to take something out that you don't like than to put something back in that is missing.


----------



## gizmo33

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> So I'm thinking this challenge-by-attrition versus short term challenge issue is just a matter of taste. The James Wyatt quote really struck a chord with me. I don't want three out of four of the day's encounters to feel too easy. I want them all to feel like real challenges.




I agree, Wyatt's description did describe something that I found familiar, but I think this debate is really about what that is.  Some of us just think it could have been bad DMing.  

And I agree that just because you make a scenario about attrition doesn't make it entertaining.  I don't think that anyone would argue that the element that they think should be in 4E should be there to the exclusion of everything else.  I don't think anyone arguing for resource management thinks it's the only thing you need in the game.

The encounters that Wyatt describes are going to feel easy when they're taken out of the context of the adventure.  Sure, when I don't really care about what's going on, losing 20 hitpoints out of 100 doesn't make a difference at all.  When I know I'm facing a BBEG later on though, it takes on some significance and it's not something I'd call "too easy".  Some of the anecdotes of play I've seen from the WotC folks makes it seem like they're much more focused on short-term slugfest to test out the crunchy parts of the rules.  I wonder how much campaign level play they really engage in.  I'd hate to think that such a range (limited) of experiences is contributing to 4E design.

People want long term familiarity with their PC.  High amounts of PC death hurts that.  Attrition of resources is a way of adding consequences to an encounter that isn't about life or death.  Wyatt's comments makes it seem like life and death is the only thing he cares about, so an encounter without a significant risk of death is no fun.  The problem, as occurs with killer DMs, is once you get hooked on "making the game entertaining by making it dangerous" is that the body count rises to the detriment of the game.  Or, you start fudging dice, but that deception has a limited lifespan.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

My late 2 cents:  I have always run D&D with a major focus on the per day resource management aspect.  It seemed integral to the flow of the game.  I will continue to do so with 4E, even if it switches to 80% effectiveness tied up into at will and per encounter abilities.  Nevertheless, I support this attempted change in 4E.  

I have seen this same discussion on several gaming boards.  It is really a discussion about pacing.  I have come to the conclusion that people that understand how to do pacing using "operational" adventuring do so because of how they structure the adventure, not because of the game system they use.  (I ran Fantasy Hero with "operational" pacing for years, and I guarantee that was a lot tougher than using 4E will be.)  OTOH, people that do not fully understand how to use "operational" pacing (for whatever reasons, including being disinclined to pay attention to it), have a really hard time coping with built-in support for such pacing in a game system.

No player in one of my games would _ever_ remotely consider resting at 9:00 AM without first considering what could go wrong.  For one thing, they know that I'm perfectly happy to sic something on them, if that fits the story, even if that fight does take the rest of the session.  (The fight will be interesting--merely a different kind of interesting than what we thought we were doing.)  Moreover, they know that I have a lot more tools in my arsenal than, "Ninjas attack!".  It may not be obvious that they are on a time limit, but time is always a precious resource for real people, and I try to reflect that.  However, it's both a skill and a preference to set up your campaign world that way, and surely not required for some groups to have fun.

1. So, pacing is primarily a GM adventure design issue, not a game system issue.  Some amount of per encounter abilities supports a common style of play, without significantly impeding the operational style of play.

2. In addition, it is easier to mechancially change a per encounter system (with house rules) to emphasize operational play than vice versa.  For example, it is annoying to change 3E to per encounter, because anything simple you do tends to ramp up power level, which you will then need to cope with.  House ruling some 4E per encounter abilities to be per day (or per session, or whatever pacing you want) is easier.  Sure, you decreased power level, but you did so with a group that presumably wants the operational challenge--and you can always compensate for decreased power with some items, NPCs, etc., if you don't want to jazz up the abilities themselves.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's by far the most significant change in 4e. Which is probably why it's received so much discussion.




If by "significant" you mean "potentially deal-breaking to the customer" I suppose so.

But, I would imagine that the social resolution engine, the 30 spell levels, the changes to race, the changes to the basic classes that make up the core of the game, etc., are actually more "significant" by any other definition.

Could be wrong though.

Time will tell.


RC


----------



## Celebrim

Doug McCrae:

Actions in combat = Tactical
Per encounter abilities = Tactical
Per day abilities = Operational
Money = Generally, strategic, although the 'loot the stuff' paradigm tends to make it more operational and depending on how readily PC's could spend the loot it could go below that level (buy a wand in the middle of combat? between encounters?)
Limited use magic items = Operational
Skill points = Strategic
Feats = Generally, strategic, unless you mean 'gives you a per day ability', which most feats currently don't but may in 4e for all we know.
Other character options = Strategic

From the above list, we've been told that there will be a reduction in 'per day abilities' and indirectly 'limited use magic items'.  Hense, we are seeing a design for a game which deemphacizes operational considerations.  You make strategic choices about what resources you want and how you want to obtain your goal, and then you can expect in every tactical situation to have that list of resources to deploy toward achieving your tactical goals.


----------



## Doug McCrae

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The problem, as occurs with killer DMs, is once you get hooked on "making the game entertaining by making it dangerous" is that the body count rises to the detriment of the game.



You're absolutely right. Tougher fights, coupled with more character options, which means it takes longer to create a high level character, will need a solution. Perhaps it will be harder for a PC to die. Maybe there will be fate points. Or raise dead wil become more common.


----------



## Imaro

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Addendum:
> In D&D 3, the lower level / mook encounters serve as attrition. But does that mean that the individual encounter becomes more exciting because you lost some hit points and spells? Or does it just mean that the last encounter becomes more interesting, because you might or might not have enough or the right ones left then?
> 
> If that is the case, is the fourth encounter worth the first "lame" three ones?
> Or wouldn't it be more fun if I had just some "fool around encounters" where players get to figure out their new cool abilities (warming up a bit), and then run into the meaty encounters that are all thrilling because you have to use your wits and all the (encounter-renewable) resources available to you?
> 
> How important is it that the resources that I have at my disposal during any specific encounter is based on my daily resource management (as opposed to the choices I made on character advancement, maybe).




Well, my experience in D&D has been that the attrition adds an unknown (ie random) factor to the equation, and as stated in UA randomness does not favor the PC's.  I think this ultimately helps to balance things out a little, since D&D  is weighted towards the PC's when using the EL and CR system.

I also think it rewards PC's who figure out other ways to handle problems, either because they want to avoid wasting resources on it or because they(correctly or incorrectly) assume that they don't have the resources to deal with a strong encounter.  In the first you reserve your power and are rewarded with the final encounter being easier...in the latter you still overcame the challenge though maybe not necessarily through the application of power.

I think it also gives a broader base for evaluation and decision making when it comes to player's and their PC's capabilities.  You decide if your PC is strong enough, smart enough, or crafty enough to cotinue based on how you play them and what you periceve your power levels to be.  If you succeed it was your call and if you fail, it was your call.  Instead with per-encounter abilities there would only be two times in a game when I would use my per-day functions(assuming they are more powerful than the per-encounter).  

1.) Against the Big fight(actually this would, given optimal conditions be the only time I use them.)
2.) In an early encounter where everything has gone horribly wrong and I have to.

In other words, I will be at 100% barring number 2 and, if number 2 happens, I am going to rest to get it back(unlees there's always some type of time limit in every adventure).  So then my question is why even divide the abilities, just make them all per-encounter.  Or, a better idea IMHO,  implement a cost system like Exalted(essence) or MCWoD(vitae/components/essence) that still regulates the uses of certain abilities.


----------



## hong

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Imagine instead of an RPG, you are playing a tactical level wargame along the lines of ASL.  Suppose you have a series of combat simulations.  If in each combat, you only have so many grenades, rounds of ammo, or bazooka rounds, then you still have limited resources.  But, if you come into each combat with the same number of grenades, rounds of ammo or bazooka rounds (which may in some cases be realistic) and even soldiers, then the game is ignoring the operational level of play (there is a helicopter which flies in and restocks the platoon after every fire fight).  That can be alot of fun.  Operational book keeping can be tedious, and it can (as you noted) be hard to design good balanced operational scenarios.
> 
> But sometimes its fun to say that you only have a limited store of supplies that 'the helicopter' can bring in, and once they are gone then they are gone (or perhaps that you only recieve resupply at a limited rate).  This turns the series of combat simulations into whats known in wargaming as a campaign (or mini-campaign depending on the scale).  The game is still just as tactically rich as before, but now you have to balance tactical decisions (throwing this grenade would be helpful right now) against operational considerations (I won't have the grenade later).




If the cost of supporting such a paradigm is that other, more popular styles of play (or so the zeitgeist would suggest) are hampered, then I see no problem in cutting it out. Yes, there is a cost. Just because you can always run one big climactic encounter doesn't mean that encounter is the best way to use the rules, and it certainly doesn't mean the classes will always be designed to be balanced in such a scenario. Accompanying the issue of the 15-minute day is that certain classes will outshine others if they can blow their load; it should be self-evident that this is not a Good Thing.

And besides, as ruleslawyer has laboured to point out, they aren't COMPLETELY removing support for such a paradigm. There's still going to be per-day abilities, they just won't form as big a proportion of the wizard's abilities as currently. Now maybe the proportion will be so small that people will always decide to go on, even if their per-day abilities are used up, in which case in practical terms there might be a problem. However, the point is this is not necessarily a binary issue.

No, I didn't mind their ditching the erinyes either, why do you ask?


----------



## gizmo33

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But its much easier to take something out that you don't like than to put something back in that is missing.




I wish this were the case and I hope it is but I'm really pessimistic about it given how 3E turned out.  IME it's very difficult to take things out of the 3E, because all the rules hang on each other.  

This has been a concern to me with the resource level issue.  At first I thought "well I'll just change "per-encounter" to "5/day" and wash my hands of it".  But then I thought - how am I going to deal with balancing out other abilities?  What if per encounter abilities are balanced against other class abilities that are not so easy just to change the frequency of usage (it would hard to explain to a rogue why he could only backstab X times/day).  So in that case, and IME, taking something out can often have a cascading effect and it actually becomes a heck of a lot of work to rebalance everything else.

That being said I agree with everything else you're saying.  What I'd like to see from WotC is a little more depth to their analysis of the problem and possible other solutions before they just throw more powers at everything and hope it fixes it.  I'd like to see them make a statment on the role that resource management should play in an RPG to know whether our differences are accidental or unavoidable.  Telling me I can now fight 10 Armageddon fights in a given day is not selling me on the idea so far.


----------



## Mallus

> It's that operational level of play that is I think at risk.



It is. I think that's a good thing. 

That kind of strategic play depends entirely on a kind of contrivance that I dislike, the assumption that the encounters/encounter rate are predictable enough so that I can utilize my fixed resources smartly over time. And framing the majority of  encounters as accounting problems rather than imaginary life-or-death situations pulls me out of the game. 

I try to emphasize the individual scenes, not the 'operational level planning' (which is invaluable seeing as I rarely know ahead of time how each scene will fit together with the rest, given the open, dungeon-free quality of my setting). 

Also, I see the game more as a faintly absurd storybook, not the Pacific Theater during WWII.



> In prior editions of the game, and distinctively in 1st edition, a 'mook' encounter still demanded high attention to tactics and still represented a 'threat' because of its potential impact at the operational level.  In efficiently handling a series of mook encounters would leave you unable to fulfill your strategic goal, because that final encounter against the bad guy which - in a straight up fight might be easy - would prove an 'encounter too far' due to either poor tactics in otherwise easy encounters you had no real chance of losing, or poor operational planning (you wasted important spells against minor obstacles).



This style of play is predicated on the overall encounter structure being (say, a leveled dungeon, for instance) being known to the players from the start. It works less well the more free-form the encounter structure gets. 



> 'm worried that 4e is heavily weighted toward a specific genre emulation that is quite different from that I traditionally associate with D&D.



4E will still emulate D&D, I'm sure of that. My hope is that it'll emulate other fantasy sources a little more handily.


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> If the cost of supporting such a paradigm is that other, more popular styles of play (or so the zeitgeist would suggest) are hampered, then I see no problem in cutting it out.




I'm not sure that I accept that the zeitgeist is as you say it is.


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae

Does it matter if it's short, medium or long-term resource management? Resource management will still be there.

In fact it will be increased, assuming all classes now get limited use abilities. Previously 50% of the standard party, the fighter and rogue, had no operational resource management.

For non-casters, decision making in combat was highly limited prior to 3e. 3e brought in lots of interesting options - sunder, grapple rules you could use, bull rush and so forth. AoOs were key, in my view, to making the game much more tactically interesting.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that I accept that the zeitgeist is as you say it is.




Well, you would say that.


----------



## gizmo33

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> You're absolutely right. Tougher fights, coupled with more character options, which means it takes longer to create a high level character, will need a solution. Perhaps it will be harder for a PC to die. Maybe there will be fate points. Or raise dead wil become more common.




Yes.  But I find that to be a slippery slope, because fate points, raise dead, etc. really make death not that much of a *death*.  And so you increase the percieved risk of an encounter but then turn around and add things to mitigate it.  Intelligent people, in short order, will recalculate their perceived risk.  So the first time you encounter an orc and he does 80 pts of damage to you on a hit, you say "wow 4E is really scarey".  But then you realize the party cleric can just click his fingers and raise you from the dead, and eventually you adjust your expectations.  Hopefully my exaggeration at least indicates IMO the principle involved, and that I really don't think there is a "fate point" solution to this problem.

As RavenCrowking point out, I think sometimes what seems like a short terms solution turns out not to be one once everyone gets used to the new system.  I think Action Points would work like this - they would sooner or later be taken for granted, and then an encounter that did not tax a significant portion of Action Points would be considered a push-over, for the same reasons that Wyatt considers a 25% resource expenditure encounter to be boring.


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> Well, you would say that.




Of course I would.  Given that your zeitgeist statements are, essentially, an appeal to authority without any backing up that I am aware of.

RC


----------



## Celebrim

Mallus said:
			
		

> It is. I think that's a good thing.




So, it would appear, do the 4e designers.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that I accept that the zeitgeist is as you say it is.



Well, WotC do the market research. All we do is read the internet. Which is a filthy liar.


----------



## gizmo33

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Does it matter if it's short, medium or long-term resource management? Resource management will still be there.




It matters IMO.  There is a qualitative difference between the types of resources - as I tried to indicate with the WoW vs. TRPG comparison for example.  It boils down to the amount of game world information you need to absorb to manage long-term resources.  What Celebrim calls "operational" stuff - is something you need to make an assessment of the overall environment to deal with.  Neither Wyatt's DM, nor Wyatt, apparently, give two hoots about this element of the game AFAICT, but it would have been nice if he would have acknowledged it's existence.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> In fact it will be increased, assuming all classes now get limited use abilities. Previously 50% of the standard party, the fighter and rogue, had no operational resource managment.




They do, fighters and rogues have to manage their hitpoints.  (And an occasional potion or scroll).  None of the classes as currently designed are exactly the same in capability after an encounter.  All suffer some form of attrition.  I don't object to rebalancing things so that fighters and wizards have the same relative staying power.  But I object to rebalancing by removing the issue entirely.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> For non-casters, decision making in combat was highly limited prior to 3e, imo. 3e brought in lots of interesting options - sunder, grapple rules you could use, bull rush and so forth. AoOs were key, in my view, to making the game much more tactically interesting.




That IMO is a seperate issue from resource management.  Increasing tactical options was interesting.  At first it was very interesting.  Now, after a few years of playing 3E, all of the "who steps where when" stuff really slows down battle.  First of all, a high level fighter is going to have an intuitive sense not to step some place that's going to get him killed.  Secondly, movement is relatively uninteresting and time consuming in 3E after you've done it for a few dozen battles.  

So there are pros and cons to raising or lowering the tactical options available in combat.  To speed up combat, I've been suspecting that they're going to reduce these options, but I don't know specifics.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course I would.  Given that your zeitgeist statements are, essentially, an appeal to authority without any backing up that I am aware of.




See http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3752743&postcount=212

Please provide evidence of the masses of people willing to defend the current setup (beyond those who have already posted, that is).


----------



## gizmo33

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Well, WotC do the market research. All we do is read the internet. Which is a filthy liar.




Market research can uncover problems, but I am FAR more skeptical that it can propose solutions.  90% of people don't like having a headache, but that doesn't justify saying that you're drug company is going to proscribe candy for headaches (market research shows people like candy too).

So Wyatt describes a problem, and I'd believe that market research could show that it's a significant problem that needs to be addressed.  But his reasoning about what causes the problem, and what fixes the problem, IMO is not something that market research would help much with.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Market research can uncover problems, but I am FAR more skeptical that it can propose solutions.




... not that anyone was suggesting that market research was proposing solutions.

Why, if it was, I could make MILLIONS!


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> See http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3752743&postcount=212
> 
> Please provide evidence of the masses of people willing to defend the current setup (beyond those who have already posted, that is).





Not surprisingly, I didn't think that post sufficient to support your contention earlier, and I do not think it sufficient now.

You seem to misunderstand me here, also.  I am not saying that you are wrong.  I am saying that you haven't evidenced that you are right.  You may be right; you have simply failed to provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept this as a given.

Thus, any reasoning that relies upon an appeal to authority must be regarded as fallicious (although the conclusion may still be correct, we don't have any means to know).

IMHO, of course.....and par for the course for the Interweb.    


RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yes, what you're proposing (the hour long availability of 0 level spells and such) is something I would really like to see in the new version.  My issue has to do with Wyatt's stated design goals, and your suggestion doesn't really address his concerns AFAICT.  So I think it's unlikely that 4E will stop at just the changes you're suggesting if Wyatt's stated goals are a part of that system.




Which is mainly because he and his colleagues are trying to design a D&D that feels different enough from 3.X to be called its own edition, while my idea is an easy implementation in nearly any edition, since it only requires the change on a few spells. It's a bit like what they did with 3.5, only not shortening but increasing duration for a few spells to be more useful overall.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

> In fact it will be increased, assuming all classes now get limited use abilities. Previously 50% of the standard party, the fighter and rogue, had no operational resource management.




Or more likely, it will be slightly descreased, but feel like it is slightly increased.  The Civ 4 design team had an interesting mantra they kept chanting when they were working on that game.  They said that Civ 4 would not be, roughly, any more complex than Civ 3.  However, they were adding complexity in certain places that they thought would be fun. Ergo, they were also removing complexity in certain places that they thought were less fun.  They thought it was better to be upfront with this--maybe this Civ classic thing X was fun enough, but that's not enough to make the cut.  It has to be not only fun enough to justify the complexity, but more fun than the other things that could use up the player's complexity tolerance.  Naturally, when you design that way, no matter what you decide, you have a portion of the player base that would have chosen differently.

I'm getting a strong overall vibe from the 4E comments that the design team is doing something similar.  Per day stuff is good, but wizard being maxed out as per day and fighter only worrying about hit points (translation, worrying about cleric cure spells)?  OK, spread the per day stuff out.  Traps are a classic, but make the party have a rogue, and only fun for the rogue?  OK, give everyone something to do with the traps.  (We only have hints on this one.)  If everyone has something to contribute, then the rogue is useful, but not required. Face man gimped for combat because he is such a great face man?  OK, spread out the social skills, and make it matter that most characters have them.

You spread something out, it gets thinner in the places where it used to be thick.  There really isn't any pacing difference between, "we stop for the day because the cleric is almost out of cure spells," vs, "we stop for the day because almost everyone has used their second wind abilities," but if it feels different to the players, it might seem like a bigger change than it is.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not surprisingly, I didn't think that post sufficient to support your contention earlier, and I do not think it sufficient now.




Well, you would say that.



> You seem to misunderstand me here, also.  I am not saying that you are wrong.  I am saying that you haven't evidenced that you are right.  You may be right; you have simply failed to provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept this as a given.




I am conspicuously failing to find lots of people not accepting this as a given. Perhaps the new standard for being reasonable is to be unreasonable.



> Thus, any reasoning that relies upon an appeal to authority must be regarded as fallicious (although the conclusion may still be correct, we don't have any means to know).




People have been making decisions on the basis of incomplete information for a long time. Trust me, I'm a statistician.



> IMHO, of course.....and par for the course for the Interweb.




Unreasonableness? Indeed.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The encounters that Wyatt describes are going to feel easy when they're taken out of the context of the adventure.  Sure, when I don't really care about what's going on, losing 20 hitpoints out of 100 doesn't make a difference at all.  When I know I'm facing a BBEG later on though, it takes on some significance and it's not something I'd call "too easy".



It would be considered too easy by my players.  Mainly because that 20 damage can be healed by a 2nd level spell.  It means they still have all their high level spells.  The way 3.5e is balanced right now, even against the BBEG, as long as they have their 2 highest spell levels available, they are basically at 100% resources.  Since, the average battle lasts about 5 rounds.  Really hard ones last 7.  This means that as long as you have your 7 "best" spells available" you can be at absolute maximum effectiveness.

By the time you have 100 hit points, I'm 11th level or higher and anything less than doing 100 hit points worth of damage to me is not going to register as a blip on my difficulty meter.  Actually, it's very likely that even doing 100 damage to me is not going to register at all.  I can heal it with one heal spell, leaving me with most of my spells left.

After 3 or so combats that manage to do over 100 damage to me (or about 15 combats that do 20 damage) I will start to feel it.  If that damage is spread out amongst multiple PCs, however, it's ever easier to heal.  If you carry enough magic items around and make sure to use wands and a lot of cure moderates instead of high level spells between combats, most parties can push this to about 5 combats of this difficulty before they feel the pressure.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> People want long term familiarity with their PC.  High amounts of PC death hurts that.  Attrition of resources is a way of adding consequences to an encounter that isn't about life or death.  Wyatt's comments makes it seem like life and death is the only thing he cares about, so an encounter without a significant risk of death is no fun.  The problem, as occurs with killer DMs, is once you get hooked on "making the game entertaining by making it dangerous" is that the body count rises to the detriment of the game.  Or, you start fudging dice, but that deception has a limited lifespan.



That's one form of play.  However, not one that everyone follows.  I ran a campaign where each player probably went through 10 characters each from level 4 through 16th.  Even when I DIDN'T kill them, they ASKED me to allow them to switch characters so they could try out new classes, new feats or just new character ideas.  I didn't fudge die rolls because a large amount of the fun for them was seeing how well their characters did against the challenges.  They wanted to see "would they survive" and they wanted a chance to use their cool powers to kick enemy butt.

They know that if the enemy does some damage to them, they can rest up and come back before fighting the next one in at least 80% of situations.


----------



## gizmo33

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I can heal it with one heal spell, leaving me with most of my spells left.




Yep, exactly.  Every one of your explanations for why something is not difficult involves an assessment of your daily resources.  If the damage (say 20 pts) doesn't not significantly impact your daily resources (ex. spells) then you don't consider it significant.  All I'm doing is applying your reasoning to the proposed design where there are no more daily resources.  You say "who cares that I took 100 points of damage, heal will bounce me back to full in no time".  Now combine that with "who cares that I used a heal spell, I'll wait a minute and get it back".

The bottom line is that by removing long term resource consequences, it's removing the sense of risk, as IMO your examples demonstrate.  The fact that your particular group doesn't find 20 pts of damage to be of consequence IMO is beside the point, which isn't about a particular hit point threshhold.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> That's one form of play.  However, not one that everyone follows.




Well sure, a high kill factor might be fun.  But why design the game so that a high kill factor is the *only* way you can make it fun?  Which is what I see this 4E situation proceeding towards.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> It matters IMO.  There is a qualitative difference between the types of resources - as I tried to indicate with the WoW vs. TRPG comparison for example.




I can't recall; have you played WoW?

Continuing in that vein, I think WoW might actually be a good indication of how this sort of thing works.

My current favorite character is a Paladin (For the Horde!) and I have several different types of resources.

I have my blessings, which can be given to both myself and any allied characters.  They take a ridiculously small amount of mana and last 5 minutes.  They are, essentially, small, at-will abilities.

Then I have my seals, which are personal buffs.  These, too, tend to not cost much mana.  They are, for most purposes, at-will abilities.

Secondly, I can release those seals on an enemy, but this tends to be mana-intensive.  Accordingly, I have a number of per-encounter abilities.

In the same vein are some area-effect spells and certain anti-undead and anti-demon abilities.  They have a fairly long recharge time, which turns them into definite per-encounter abilities.

Similarly, my healing ability, which tends to cost a lot more mana than the seals and judgements, are per-encounter abilities.

Then, there's your long-recharge abilities, like Lay on Hands, using certain trinkets, etc.  These can each be used once, but have a recharge time from about an hour to several hours.  These are, certainly, "per-adventure" resources.

The resource management game is certainly alive and well in WoW - determining whether I should use my LoH now or wait until a more critical time is certainly analgous to whether or not a 3E wizard should drop his only fireball! - and that's with only a few "per-day" resources (generally, once you use your long-recharge items, you'll be done with whatever dungeon you're exploring before they come back).

Of course your first inclination in any fight is to turn to your at-will or per-encounter resources: they'll come back and be available much, much more quickly.  That doesn't mean using a particular resource is not an important decision.

EDIT:

If I can arrange things such that all of my per-encounter resources have come back before tackling the next challenge, then I'm essentially operating at 100% capability for most of the time, which lets me do stupid things like attack three or four bad guys, each of which would be a moderately challenging encounter, simultaneously. (Or, as is more likely to happen, fight one guy, almost win, only to have his friend join in, when the 3rd guy rounds the corner.)  However, this will probably cause me to dip into my per-day resources.  But that's okay, because really, what I've done is just taken away that small safety net I used to have.  All of my other resources are no less effective than they were before; I merely lack the opportunity to press the "Save my Butt" button.

Now, it's entirely possible that, as a player, the "smart" thing would be to press that "Save Me!" button and head back to the nearest inn until it comes back (analogous to Celebrim's belief on what will happen).

However, the number of WoW players you'll find who do that are vanishingly small (I'd say that none of them do, but I'm sure there's an outlier somewhere).  Why?  Because sitting in the inn for an hour after each fight is *boring*.

Instead, you say, "Yep - no more safety net.  Maybe I'll be a bit more careful this time!" and then you continue on, hacking and slashing your way through the Keep until you find the BBEG.  And maybe he beats you.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yep, exactly.  Every one of your explanations for why something is not difficult involves an assessment of your daily resources.  If the damage (say 20 pts) doesn't not significantly impact your daily resources (ex. spells) then you don't consider it significant.  All I'm doing is applying your reasoning to the proposed design where there are no more daily resources.  You say "who cares that I took 100 points of damage, heal will bounce me back to full in no time".  Now combine that with "who cares that I used a heal spell, I'll wait a minute and get it back".



And actually, that's the reason it WILL be fun.  Because right now the only fight that IS fun is the one that actually challenges you.

It could be the first fight with an enemy that hits you for 150 damage per round that you need to use your Delay Death AND your Heal spell first round just to survive the first round.  You survive, but it was cool because you needed your special abilities to survive.

Or it could be the last battle of the day where you have almost no resources left so you need to find some way to find the reletively minor damage the enemy is doing using the few resources you have.  Which is also fun, since you need to do everything you can to survive and you will come close to death.

Or it could be no fun if the DM uses up all your resources THEN throws you up against the one big encounter, guaranteeing your death.

The idea is to turn EVERY battle into the first choice above.  You NEED your special abilities to survive.  The enemies will kill you for sure if all you do is just attack and hope they die before you run out of hit points.  You need the party to work together and use all of their skills to survive.  However, (and this is the key point) IF you do use your abilities, you have a very large chance of actually surviving.

In the above example, if the cleric has a delay death and a heal spell both prepared and the party can do the enemies hit points in damage during 1-2 rounds, then the party actually isn't in that much danger.  It's fairly simple to defeat the enemy and not have anyone on your side die.  However, one of your party members may drop below zero and require a powerful heal to bring back.  It's exciting and the players are left thinking: "Glad we had the Cleric around, otherwise we might have died!"  Thus, creating tension AND reinforcing the role and usefulness of the Cleric.

To accomplish this, you also need to limit the resources of the party somewhat as well.  Make it so you can heal once per encounter...but you can heal ONLY once per encounter.  Now, you can survive one round of that damage, but the second round?  Thus, creating more tension.


----------



## Celebrim

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> However, the number of WoW players you'll find who do that are vanishingly small (I'd say that none of them do, but I'm sure there's an outlier somewhere).  Why?  Because sitting in the inn for an hour after each fight is *boring*.




Good story, and good commentary.  I would like to point out how your analogy breaks down though.  In your average pen and paper RPG, sitting in the inn for an hour after a fight takes like 6 seconds.  Very few DMs will take the step of forcing the players to RP through an hour of tedium at the inn, and if they do and the still have players afterwards then they must have extraordinarily good relationships with thier players.*  

The point being that the cost WoW players experience for resting (namely waste of real life time, tedium) is not paid by players of pen and paper RPGs.  The situation is more analogous to playing a free form single player computer game, with a 'camp/rest' button.  Unless there is a 'proactive' element like the risk of being ambushed while resting built into the game, the player of such a game will generally learn to 'camp/rest' (and/or save the game!) after every encounter.

*(I did heard a story once about a DM in 1st edition whose players insisted on marching through a driving rainstorm, and rather than creating ad hoc rules for fatigue and hypothermia and trying to impose them on the game, he insisted that the players take the actual game out into the very real rain going on at the time.  Apparantly, after a few minutes in the rain, the players agreed with the DM that thier characters would probably prefer to find shelter.)


----------



## gizmo33

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I can't recall; have you played WoW?




No.  But I stayed at a holiday inn express.      I also had a long conversation with a friend one time who is a WoW fan but he said it didn't compare to DnD in a lot of ways, and in the course of the discussion (and having a good sense of the technical limitations of computers to do what a human DM does) I wound up feeling like I had a good idea of what was going on.  His list of things that he wished WoW had were all things having to do with versimilitude and the ability to feel like your actions meant something in the world.  (I also played Neverwinter Nights, which I thought had a lot of the same feel as what my friend described for WoW.  I was just going into a big fight, bashing a bunch of monsters, and then insta-boosting.  Other than in a few narrowly defined areas, the NPCs never remembered anything about me and the world was pretty static.)

Your story, involving the part about the inn points this out.  It's not that you can't have a 1/day ability in a computer game, that's easy enough.  It's that you don't have reasonable ways to handle the consequences of daily resource usage.  Nothing is going to happen in the inn unless it's programmed.  Resting in the inn in WoW, apparently, doesn't mean that Sauron advances on the world and takes it over.  That would be extremely complicated to program.  It's a lot easier just to plop monsters and graphics down in a place and let the PC run through it.  The result is that recovering 1/day abilities is boring, and of no particular consequence to the game.

So when Wyatt described the problem, it sounded like WoW.  The way you handled the 9:00-9:15 problem as a DM IMO was to use techniques that are not available in WoW.  The choice to rest becomes a difficult, or at least interesting one because the DM just isn't going to sit there with his dungeon of 10 rooms and wait for you to go back in.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Good story, and good commentary.  I would like to point out how your analogy breaks down though.  In your average pen and paper RPG, sitting in the inn for an hour after a fight takes like 6 seconds.




Yep.  And if the world always pauses when that happens, then there's absolutely no difference between the "Rest 8 hours to get your powers back" and "Rest 1 minute to get your powers back" or "Rest 1 hour to get your powers back" rulesets.

On the other hand, if the world does not pause ...


----------



## Geoff Watson

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is, IMHO, the 3.X problem all over again.
> 
> 3.X is a great system, if you play it in the same way that you would play 1e or 2e.  However, 3.X doesn't reward that sort of play mechanically.  Instead, it rewards play with a 15 minute adventuring day, lots of buffs, and all sorts of assorted problems that have sprang up specifically (IMHO) because the designers didn't understand what sort of play they were rewarding when the rules were being written.
> 
> It takes some time to realize that a new edition rewards different sorts of play, so it "shines" at first in initial playtest, and then the problems appear a year or more down the road, when the players have learned what the "winning" strategies are.
> 
> RC




Why are people playing 3e different to 1e and 2e?

There were groups who used the '15 minute adventuring day' style in 1st and 2nd ed.
1/2e rewards that style just as much as 3e does. 

Geoff.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Why are people playing 3e different to 1e and 2e?
> 
> There were groups who used the '15 minute adventuring day' style in 1st and 2nd ed.
> 1/2e rewards that style just as much as 3e does.
> 
> Geoff.



3E introduced WAY more buff spells, and their effect was more dramatic.  So you would use more spells if you were going nova.
In 1/2e, you'd have a few spells you'd use *during* a fight, but it might not go long enough to make a significant dent in your spell list.  Buff spells just weren't that good.  Look at Enlarge compared to Enlarge Person -- MUCH more potent in 3E.  And Haste in 2e?  Age 1 year and make a System Shock check or drop dead.

With 3e, buff spells are standard operating procedure, and by the time you've cast all of them, that's half your spell load right there.


----------



## Hussar

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> 3E introduced WAY more buff spells, and their effect was more dramatic.  So you would use more spells if you were going nova.
> In 1/2e, you'd have a few spells you'd use *during* a fight, but it might not go long enough to make a significant dent in your spell list.  Buff spells just weren't that good.  Look at Enlarge compared to Enlarge Person -- MUCH more potent in 3E.  And Haste in 2e?  Age 1 year and make a System Shock check or drop dead.
> 
> With 3e, buff spells are standard operating procedure, and by the time you've cast all of them, that's half your spell load right there.




However, in 1e and 2e, the rest point happened whenever the cleric said, "Guys, I'm out of cures."  In 3e, the spells might be different, but, at the end of the day, it's still the cleric calling the shots.

I know we certainly did the 15 minute adventuring day as well.  Why not?  In a lot of static dungeons, nothing was going to change from one day to the next, so, heck, rest after every encounter and start fresh.


----------



## pemerton

A very interesting thread. In my view, all the 4e design threads reinforce the obvious conclusion that 4e will not support a 1st ed style of play.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Some of this might come down to gaming style:  I like to run a fairly open-ended adventure.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In 4E apparently, my judgements are going to be pressured by the fact that certain situations that weren't so boring in the 3E paradigm are boring in the 4E paradigm.






			
				Mkhaiwati said:
			
		

> A clock is only part of the equation in my games.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Another group of villians might just move somewhere else if they get the idea that another group is hunting/killing them down.
> 
> Another option is if a party takes too long in a task, it can be accomplished by another, NPC party that will accept all the rewards.



4e is simply not intended to support this style of play - where, for example, a bad choice by the players means that the evening's fun has been stolen by the NPCs.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> The only difference is that with one setup, the onus is on the party to keep things moving; with the other, it's on the DM.



Exactly right. In 4e the onus is on the GM to provide the players with challenges that they overcome by playing their PCs. The world does not "carry on" in the background, oozing verisimilitude. Rather, it is a bundle of "game elements" for the GM to use in order to build challenges.

Will this produce contrived plots? In a sense, yes, but only in the sense in which basically all heroic and genre narrative is contrived.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> In prior editions of the game, and distinctively in 1st edition, a 'mook' encounter still demanded high attention to tactics and still represented a 'threat' because of its potential impact at the operational level.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> D&D has a 30 year history of that style of play, at its still supported if you choose to play the game that way even in 3rd edition, and now suddenly everyone is saying that is a boring way to play that shouldn't be supported anymore?



But 3E, while perhaps capable of handling this play style, is pretty clearly not aimed at it. Hence all those people (of whom I am one) who think that 3E games play very differently from 1st ed games. (And I'm surprised that no-one in this thread has yet referred to Monte Cook's column in which he discussed this very aspect of 3E mechanical design, and flagged a move to per-encounter abilities as consistent with that design.) 4e is just the next step in an existing trend.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The people that I know that like to play wizards prefer them over fighters because (for one reason) they'd rather have a few strategic, important effects on the adventure rather than the consistent slogging that fighters seem to offer.  By evening out the wizard's combat ability to consistent slogging, wizards aren't offering what they used to as a class.



As Monte explains in his column, this was not part of the design goals even of 3E.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Simply knowing that an NPC holds a hostage means time is not on your side, that's just common sense and someone who doesn't get that IMO is not taking the versimilitude of the campaign world seriously, which is a fixable problem.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In the rare instances where the players can be certain of no consequences from resting, then it plays out almost exactly as I would expect an "encounter-based" resource situation to play out.  "PCs:  We go outside and rest.  DM:  Ok, next day - here's what's going on..."  In the case where there are no consequences to resting, then I don't see what the negative consequences are to the narrative.






			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Mr. Wyatt said that the reason that the game had evolved toward one big encounter per days was that according to the design the first three were boring, and only the fourth was challenging.  But that wasn't the problem at all.   The problem is as you say, that its almost impossible to get the PC's to try that fourth encounter in the first place.  If the fourth encounter per day is the only one with risk, then the tendancy for smart players is to avoid the fourth encounter per day.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But so long as ANY resources aren't recovered after one encounter, the smart players are going to choose to stop as soon as they lose any critical resource (even if only hit points).   Because, why risk it?




Again, 4e is pretty explicitly not aimed at supporting this sort of resource-management playstyle.

In real life, people have all sorts of reasons for acting "irrationally" from the point of view of resource management: impetuousness, anger, a taste for the dramatic, a love of risk, etc. And much genre narrative presents stories where these sorts of motivations, rather than rational resource management, drive the adventure. I think 4e is looking to support this style of play. Per-encounter resources make it possible in a way that per-day do not. Of course, they don't therefore mandate it, and what I'm interested in is what _other_ mechanics may be introduced to support this play style.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> That kind of strategic play depends entirely on a kind of contrivance that I dislike, the assumption that the encounters/encounter rate are predictable enough so that I can utilize my fixed resources smartly over time. And framing the majority of  encounters as accounting problems rather than imaginary life-or-death situations pulls me out of the game.
> 
> I try to emphasize the individual scenes, not the 'operational level planning' (which is invaluable seeing as I rarely know ahead of time how each scene will fit together with the rest, given the open, dungeon-free quality of my setting).






			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> The simple problem I have with all this "resource management problem" posts right now is that I never ran adventures that were based around the simple entering and plundering of a dungeon outside of any other story element. The heroes are always under some time pressure, and can't simply go back to rest after every major encounter.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Classic dungeon crawling is a planned exploration of an underground area, with the equipment, companions and organization that comes with that. Heroic adventures are tension-filled and, in many parts, fast-paced affairs where the heroes simply can't sit down and rest again after the first fight, but have to press on



Agreed with both these pasages. Between heroic passions and the tensions of the plot, the pace of the game is intended to be driven by something other than the rational management of resources. In the Gary Gygax 1st Ed DMG sense, it will no longer reward good play. But then, good play will no longer be defined in those terms.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> If each encounter does not depend on previous encounters for its tactical significance, then designing the overall adventure becomes so much easier, as does managing the consequences if the party deviates from the anticipated route.



Agreed. The game will support a _different sort_ of open-ended adventure - one in which the climax is known in advance, at least in general terms (unlike the games in which a delay can mean the NPCs preempt the PCs), and is guaranteed to be climactic, but in which the path to it is not predetermined.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> By your own admission you already 'hand wave' operational considerations, so the style of play you want to have is handled simply by treating existing rules as optional and ignoring certain rules.  And that's fine, and you are the DM and should be able to make that call.  But its much easier to take something out that you don't like than to put something back in that is missing.



But hand-waving, while easy for experience GMs, is very hard for inexperienced ones. And it seems that 4e, like 3E before it, is aimed mostly at supporting inexperienced GMs. Thus it will expressly abandon the "operational considerations" approach to play. Whether or not this is a misjudgement of the market only time will tell. My own feeling is that it is not, and that Hong is correct with respect to the zeitgesit.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It is my opinion that a game designer should first ask "What are players intended to do?" and then "What incentives can I give them to do that?" _*before*_ asking "What is fun?"  Simply put, it is easier to make a game with clear goals, and incentives to follow those goals, fun than it is to make players do your "fun" stuff if they are rewarded for doing something else entirely.



I suspect that the 4e designers have asked and answered that question. We can infer their answer from the direction in which they seem to be taking the game.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Good! The less of the s*mul*tionist baggage from 3E remains, the better.



It is not quite true that all the simulationism is being dropped. In many ways it is just going more high-concept: a good part of the fun of play is meant to be derived from the experience of "my guy" cutting down hordes of mooks before blowing up the dragon. I haven't seen any indication that the designers intend to introduce mechanics to support thematically-oriented play (eg like Spiritual Attributes or Fate Points that are activated by the pursuit of player-determined character goals). 

But much of the tension between simulationism and gamism seems to be going. For example, the monster design rules look like they will be much closer to Tunnels and Trolls, than to 3E's simulationist nightmare.


----------



## pemerton

Celebrim said:
			
		

> When resource management goes away as a skill (operational level as opposed to tactical level planning), then in order for any encounter to be 'interesting' it must involve considerable risk of tactical failure in and of itself.  What that means is that every 'interesting' encounter involves the possibility of player/party death.  Now, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with every fight being a 'real fight', but what it will tend to do is increase character fragility.



There are mechanics to handle this, like Spiritual Attributes, Fate Points etc. Of course, they push the game even further away from the "operational considerations" paradigm.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yes.  But I find that to be a slippery slope, because fate points, raise dead, etc. really make death not that much of a *death*.  And so you increase the percieved risk of an encounter but then turn around and add things to mitigate it.  Intelligent people, in short order, will recalculate their perceived risk.



This is not necessarily true. In a game in which players can determine how many Fate Points they earn, because Fate Points are earned by pursuing player-determined thematic goals, then Fate Points do not become a resource to be managed. The players can generate as many as they need, by pursuing the goals that they have determined as the ones they want to pursue.

In this sort of the game, "winning" is not beating the monsters, but rather realising one's goals in a way that constitutes a satisfying exploration/resolution of the theme in question.

I dont' think that 4e will go in this direction, however. If it does have a Fate Point mechanism, I suspect that the earning of Fate Points will be placed in the hands of the GM rather than the players. This does encourage treating Fate Points as a resource, for the reasons that you indicate, because (from the players' point of view, when the GM cannot necessarily relied upon) they become a limited quantity outside the players' control.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, in 1e and 2e, the rest point happened whenever the cleric said, "Guys, I'm out of cures."  In 3e, the spells might be different, but, at the end of the day, it's still the cleric calling the shots.



Sure, but I think it's worse in 3e.  In 1e or 2e, the party might bust into a room, have a fairly easy fight without using any spells or taking much damage, and keep going.  In 3e, that won't happen, since before they've gone into the room they've cast Enlarge Person, Haste, Bull's Strength, Divine Favor, and Mass Resist Energy.


----------



## Hussar

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Sure, but I think it's worse in 3e.  In 1e or 2e, the party might bust into a room, have a fairly easy fight without using any spells or taking much damage, and keep going.  In 3e, that won't happen, since before they've gone into the room they've cast Enlarge Person, Haste, Bull's Strength, Divine Favor, and Mass Resist Energy.




That's a playstyle thing to be quite honest.  Sure, some people play this way, others don't.  Considering how many more spells casters get in 3e, I'm not really sure if there is much difference.


----------



## med stud

Imaro said:
			
		

> Nice way to twist what I'm saying.  Let me clarify, no tactical and strategic combat are not the end all and be all of a good battle in D&D.  However if the tactics of the fight break down to the same thing over and over again(more likely when you have per-encounter abilities then per day abilities) it becomes more an excercise in tediousness IMHO.




Why is this more likely? If you look at chess, you have the same "powers" in the start of each "encounter" but lots of people still like to play chess all the time. That's one objection I have against thinking that per-encounter powers will be a detriment to tactics. My other objection is that if you keep the opposition different or just change the scenery a little the tactics for the encounter will change. Your fight encounter of the day may be against three ogres, a straight up fight with much tumbling and exploiting the ogres' lack of intelligence. You only use per encounter powers, go further down the dungeon (if you are into playing those) and in a dark hall with lots of pillars you are ambushed by shadow ninjas, which demand another approach.

There are tactics in both of those situations and even if _all_ powers are per encounter (which I senserily doubt) you can still have all the tactics you want, every encounter.


----------



## Raven Crowking

med stud said:
			
		

> Why is this more likely? If you look at chess, you have the same "powers" in the start of each "encounter" but lots of people still like to play chess all the time. That's one objection I have against thinking that per-encounter powers will be a detriment to tactics.





That's the best counter to Celebrim's posts thus far.

OTOH, I know very few people who play chess as often as fights occur in D&D, and chess is an adversarial game....if one followed the analogy, then the DM would be trying to "beat" the player's tactics using a preset "allowable monster limit" (effectively, a board limit to the DM's pieces so that they couldn't automatically overwhelm the players' pieces).

I am not sure that people would continue to play non-adversarial chess.


RC


----------



## med stud

Celebrim said:
			
		

> (...)
> The thing is, every edition of D&D has supported tactical play just fine.  But now it seems like we are hearing a group of people saying that operational play is 'badwrongfun' and should not be supported.
> 
> By your own admission you already 'hand wave' operational considerations, so the style of play you want to have is handled simply by treating existing rules as optional and ignoring certain rules.  And that's fine, and you are the DM and should be able to make that call.  But its much easier to take something out that you don't like than to put something back in that is missing.




There are not people saying that operational level is badwrongfun, I suspect that many people think it's boring, but I think the main problem with that style is that it is hard to execute well.

You have to know what encounters that will drain a meaningful amount of resources from the party without being so easy that it's boring and without being so hard that you have to do something about the coming BBEG. It's way easier for a beginner to plan the encounters encounter-per-encounter instead.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I tend to think that the attrition model allows for an aggregate effect, where bad things can happen to the PCs without the DM being adversarial; whereas the "per encounter" model almost mandates adversarial DMing (within whatever limits the game describes as being "fair") in order to keep it interesting.

YMMV, and probably does.

RC


----------



## med stud

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's the best counter to Celebrim's posts thus far.
> 
> OTOH, I know very few people who play chess as often as fights occur in D&D, and chess is an adversarial game....if one followed the analogy, then the DM would be trying to "beat" the player's tactics using a preset "allowable monster limit" (effectively, a board limit to the DM's pieces so that they couldn't automatically overwhelm the players' pieces).
> 
> I am not sure that people would continue to play non-adversarial chess.
> 
> RC




I think people don't play chess as much as they fight in D&D because chess takes lots of time and is really taxing mentally. My point wasn't to compare chess and D&D combats, it was to counter the point that per encounter powers somehow would make the game have less tactics.


----------



## Raven Crowking

med stud said:
			
		

> I think people don't play chess as much as they fight in D&D because chess takes lots of time and is really taxing mentally. My point wasn't to compare chess and D&D combats, it was to counter the point that per encounter powers somehow would make the game have less tactics.





And, as I said, that was the best point (IMHO) raised in that regard so far.

However, I would say that chess is tactically interesting only because both sides are trying to win.  Playing chess against someone who has no chance of beating you is boring; playing chess against someone who you have no chance of beating is equally boring (though perhaps more instructional).  In order to be interesting, each chess game must be an all-or-nothing affair where the outcome cannot be predicted in advance.

This jibes, IMHO, exactly with the problem Celebrim and Gizmo33 are describing with the "per encounter" model.


RC


EDIT:  Also, it should be noted that if the game has "per encounter" tactics (as all rpgs must) and also has operational tactics, perforce it must have more tactics than a game that just has "per encounter" tactics, unless there is a significant difference in the level of the "per encounter" tactics between the two games.

Using the chess example, if you played a series of three games of chess, and each pawn that you lost in the first two games was not replenished, but you needed to win the game to move on, the loss of pawns in those games would be more serious, and would perforce require more tactical considerations than three unrelated games of chess in a row.

Even in the case of Yahoo! Games, where winning at chess affects your ranking (so that ranking becomes a sort of metagame for some), it is easy to witness how the operational level affects tactics at the "per encounter" level -- some people abandon boards to attempt to force the other player to quit (thus winning), some people refuse to play against anyone who has a chance of winning, etc.  These are not generally things that happen when there are only "per encounter" rules in place.  

The purpose of ranking (so that you can find someone close to your level in play) instead became a metagame reward system that effectively subverts the original purpose.  It is my fear that 4e, like 3e, will have these same sorts of problems.


RC


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I tend to think that the attrition model allows for an aggregate effect, where bad things can happen to the PCs without the DM being adversarial; whereas the "per encounter" model almost mandates adversarial DMing (within whatever limits the game describes as being "fair") in order to keep it interesting.



Huh?


----------



## Doug McCrae

Apparently, based on the latest podcast, there will be action points in 4e, which is another area of resource management.


----------



## Imaro

med stud said:
			
		

> Why is this more likely? If you look at chess, you have the same "powers" in the start of each "encounter" but lots of people still like to play chess all the time. That's one objection I have against thinking that per-encounter powers will be a detriment to tactics. My other objection is that if you keep the opposition different or just change the scenery a little the tactics for the encounter will change. Your fight encounter of the day may be against three ogres, a straight up fight with much tumbling and exploiting the ogres' lack of intelligence. You only use per encounter powers, go further down the dungeon (if you are into playing those) and in a dark hall with lots of pillars you are ambushed by shadow ninjas, which demand another approach.
> 
> There are tactics in both of those situations and even if _all_ powers are per encounter (which I senserily doubt) you can still have all the tactics you want, every encounter.




This all depends on how you look at the game of chess and an encounter.  In an actual game you are steadily dealing with depleting resources over extended time(IMHO this is way different from the avg fight that lasts 3-5 rnds, though I might be mistaken).  It all depends on how you view the game, but unless you gain a piece by moving a pawn to the last square, or are playing against someone way below your skill level, you will never have the resources you had in the opening move.  IMHO each move is an "encounter" as it sets up a different dynamic that isn't the same as before that move. The game can still be won by a clever, or more skilled opponent even with less resources, and I enjoy this aspect of chess as well.  You look at the entire game as one encounter, I look at the entire game as the same as an entire game session of D&D.  My analogy of chess and per-encounter abilities is more similar to every time you take a piece...you get most of yours back, YMMV.

I'm not saying tactics won't exsist...but I can easily see players falling into a sort of routine with their per-encounter & at-will abilities, while saving the per-day for the big or last encounter that night.  All the time? No, but I could see it happening alot, even with varied scenery etc.  I find it hard to believe that after a few sessions PC's won't find optimized combo's either within their own abilities or working in tangent and while they may not be practical in every situation, winning a combat in D&D boils down to two main factors; deal more propotional damage to opponents and take less proportional damage from opponents.  The designer's could totally surprise me and make every ability either so original it can be used in only a few singular situations(thus promoting outside the box thinking) or so applicable all can be used in any situation(they're really all equal so it's now a style thing, which doesn't really promote tactics).  But my first instinct is there will be abilities that are just better than others...only time will tell.   

IMHO the per-day depletion forces you to consider more variables when taking an action and I like that, it's long-term strategy and thought.  I mean in the end it really is a style thing.


----------



## Celebrim

med stud said:
			
		

> Why is this more likely? If you look at chess, you have the same "powers" in the start of each "encounter" but lots of people still like to play chess all the time.




So you are saying that chess makes a good analogy for RPGs?  Do you think RPGs are competitive games like chess?  Do you think chess is as popular as RPGs (for example, do you think that as many people play chess for as long of a period as play WoW)?  The tenth  time you played chess, did your queen acquire the power to jump peices, and your king get an armor upgrade?



> That's one objection I have against thinking that per-encounter powers will be a detriment to tactics.




I have never claimed that per-encounter powers will be a detriment to tactics.  If you are talking tactics, then you've missed my point.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> A very interesting thread. In my view, all the 4e design threads reinforce the obvious conclusion that 4e will not support a 1st ed style of play.




You might be right.  I think you're summary of the thread thus far was interesting and it did a good job of capturing my thoughts, at least.




			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> The world does not "carry on" in the background, oozing verisimilitude. Rather, it is a bundle of "game elements" for the GM to use in order to build challenges.




That's a shame.  The reason I don't play monopoly, chess, or WoW is because I prefer the sense of versimilitude.  If it devolves into a series of superficial encounters I'm not sure what RPGs would have to offer.  



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> As Monte explains in his column, this was not part of the design goals even of 3E.




Someone on this board told me recently (and emphatically) that the "status quo" style of adventure was discussed in the 3E DMG and discussed an adventure that was designed according to what I've been calling versimilitude.  Why would that be there if it was Monte's design goal to exclude it.  Do you have a link where he's quoted on this topic?



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> In real life, people have all sorts of reasons for acting "irrationally" from the point of view of resource management: impetuousness, anger, a taste for the dramatic, a love of risk, etc. And much genre narrative presents stories where these sorts of motivations, rather than rational resource management, drive the adventure.




I have two problems with this.  One is that IMO it's not actually true of people trained to handle dangerous situations.  Experience adventurers who have survived numerous conflict are probably no longer operating at a level of impetuousness as does a noob.

The second problem is that people in stories have feelings, but their actions are infrequently irrational.  A novel is able to capture the thoughts and subtleties, but the game happens at a higher level.  The way we play, people don't sit around and talk about how their character feels about stuff, it's usually just a series of actions, and ultimately you can gain insight into how the character feels by what they try to accomplish goal-wise.  The suggestion (and I've seen it several times from folks advocating this 4E style) is that somehow players put aside rationality and start acting according to extreme personality stereotypes.  This would be an uncomfortable thing for me to do in my games because my players know that an adventure could kill them.  Honestly, I'm not sure that really applies to a good percentage of other people's games.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> In the Gary Gygax 1st Ed DMG sense, it will no longer reward good play. But then, good play will no longer be defined in those terms.




Possibly.  Gygax was a wargamer.  War has a tendency to be treated as a science by folks (Sun Tzu and all of that).  Most field manuals on war don't advise you to tap into your "heroic passions" for anything.  Ultimately I guess this is a cultural thing.  



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Agreed. The game will support a _different sort_ of open-ended adventure - one in which the climax is known in advance, at least in general terms (unlike the games in which a delay can mean the NPCs preempt the PCs), and is guaranteed to be climactic, but in which the path to it is not predetermined.




*This, literally, is the opposite of open-ended.  Perhaps the expression is unfamiliar.*



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> But hand-waving, while easy for experience GMs, is very hard for inexperienced ones. And it seems that 4e, like 3E before it, is aimed mostly at supporting inexperienced GMs. Thus it will expressly abandon the "operational considerations" approach to play. Whether or not this is a misjudgement of the market only time will tell. My own feeling is that it is not, and that Hong is correct with respect to the zeitgesit.




I think popular music is a close analogy.  Genre's evolve over time because the herd of folks generally unfamiliar and uninterested in music will listen to a watered-down, refined version of music that was developed in a more creative mode by folks with taste.  Sure, the numbers and sales figures will tell you you're being successful when the huge herd is in to what you're doing.  But the strange thing is that the herd tends to follow the experienced people, and when you lose the experienced people (which happens every decade or so), you're not going to keep the herd for long.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> a good part of the fun of play is meant to be derived from the experience of "my guy" cutting down hordes of mooks before blowing up the dragon.




Why is it interesting?  Part of the assumption that the 4E style of play makes is that adversity=un-fun.  Given that the outcomes are pre-determined, and there's a shrinking list of strategically interesting options for the game, it's just a matter of time IMO before players realize their on a story-telling treadmill.  IMO this is only successful in the short-run because story-telling games rely on a spirit of the game established by wargamers - the only reason people think they can die in such games is because they read something about Gygax's game which described someone dying.  Sooner or later they'll catch on, and the story-telling game will have to sink or swim on it's own merits and not because it diguises itself as the type of game with variable outcomes.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> For example, the monster design rules look like they will be much closer to Tunnels and Trolls, than to 3E's simulationist nightmare.




Hey!  That's a 30 year long nightmare called "Dungeons and Dragons" AFAICT.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think popular music is a close analogy. Genre's evolve over time because the herd of folks generally unfamiliar and uninterested in music will listen to a watered-down, refined version of music that was developed in a more creative mode by folks with taste





  You realize how elitist this sounds, right? Not that thats anything new here. 





> Someone on this board told me recently (and emphatically) that the "status quo" style of adventure was discussed in the 3E DMG and discussed an adventure that was designed according to what I've been calling versimilitude. Why would that be there if it was Monte's design goal to exclude it. Do you have a link where he's quoted on this topic?





  I believe this was talking more about the whole deal of Wizards basically being useful every now and then but spending the rest of their time standing around and similar issues, not status quo adventuring.




> I have two problems with this. One is that IMO it's not actually true of people trained to handle dangerous situations. Experience adventurers who have survived numerous conflict are probably no longer operating at a level of impetuousness as does a noob.






  There are a great many characters in fiction who are highly skilled and experienced, but still make decisions based on things other than rationality and/or good resource management. 

  And I'm sure theres probably even a few in real life.




> That's a shame. The reason I don't play monopoly, chess, or WoW is because I prefer the sense of versimilitude. If it devolves into a series of superficial encounters I'm not sure what RPGs would have to offer.





  You seem to have a tendency to go a bit overboard. This thread is discussing one aspect of the game. Even if the "versimililtude" of the per-encounter model is less for you, it doesnt affect necessarily all the other aspects of the game. It doesnt even mean that it will "devolve into superficial encounters" anymoreso than it already has. It might even be the oposite...remember, *we still know next to nothing about how its all actually going to work.* 

  I am quite sure RPGs will still have plenty to offer, certainly to people in general, and even to you.




> and there's a shrinking list of strategically interesting options for the game





  So far I see no reason whatever to believe this to be true. At least not in a general way. And again realizing that we have very little actual information and details.


----------



## FickleGM

After about 12-pages, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around how this will cause a major impact to my games.  I just don't see it.

I suppose that there are a couple reasons for this:

1. I don't play resource depletion games because either my players aren't interested in that sort of game.  I'm not going to force my players to play in a strict resource management game if they don't want to, since the object is to have fun.

2. I can already think of multiple ways to increase the challenge without making every fight "all or nothing".  Of course, since I don't run a very resource-intensive game now, I'm already doing these sorts of things.

3. My players enjoy the occasional "boring" encounter that they can walk over.  It makes them feel like they are experienced adventurers.

4. There are other resources that still can be taxed IF NECESSARY.  Ammo, food and water are the obvious things (as well as Hit Points and Action Points).  Lost, stolen, broken or degraded equipment (I don't figure that the core rules will require you to degrade equipment or prevent it, so if the game calls for it, go for it). 

I suppose that I am more the "target audience" (or if not me, then some of my players) for WotC than some others...perhaps.  I know that I am excited about most of the changes and am looking forward to at least giving 4e a spin around the block.


----------



## Merlion

One of the reasons that I like what little we know about this so far, at least as regards wizards, runs thus:

  One of, if not the main reason I dislike Vancian magic is because it does not fit well with most depictions of how magic works. Having the practice of magic consist entirely of specific spells, that must be "prepared" and once used are gone, meaning you must "prepare" multiple copies to achieve the same effect twice etc, just doesnt work for me, conceptually.

  Often in fiction, it seems to me that mage-types are capable of performing basic "magical actions" most or all of the time. Things like a very basic "magic ray" type attack, moving objects without touching them, creating light etc. Then they have their actual "spells", which often require more time and effort, may require materials and/or rituals of some kind etc, and usually have more powerful effects. They also require more specific conditions, and are often more taxing and can be done less frequently.

  Now I realize that most fictional magic also has a fatigue element, either spiritual, physical or both, but you relatively rarely see that incorporated into RPGs for various reasons beyond the scope of what I am saying here. Although it does add another oddity to the Vancian system that a Wizard can run completely out of magic...but it doesnt adversly affect him in any other way.

  I see this new system as being more in line with what I described above, and more like how magic is usually depicted than the Vancian system. Also it sounds as if it will solve the issue of Wizards often finding themselves unable to be very Wizardy pretty quickly, especially at low levels.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I tend to think that the attrition model allows for an aggregate effect, where bad things can happen to the PCs without the DM being adversarial; whereas the "per encounter" model almost mandates adversarial DMing (within whatever limits the game describes as being "fair") in order to keep it interesting.
> 
> YMMV, and probably does.
> 
> RC



So, why is it not adversarial if the DM decides an encounter that must be met in a specific time frame and thus resource depletion is important and leading to the final encounters being more difficult, but it is adversarial if the DM just creates a difficult encounter? 

In both cases, there is an equally high chance that the DM becomes adversarial and wants to "win" he game. But most DMs know that this is not what they are there for. They are there to provide an entertaining game, which will mostly mean things that players will get cool or interesting things to see and do. And a fight that is challenging is usually pretty interesting. A fight that only serves to make the next fight challenging might or might not...


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> You realize how elitist this sounds, right? Not that thats anything new here.




I should have emphasized *generally* and *interested* in what I'm saying.  It's not a matter of their being a natural division, it's a consequence of people doing what interests them.  I didn't think it was all that elitist to suggest that in certain areas of life people that care less about them tend to be led by those who do.  Of course there are people who care alot about the game on both sides of this particular issue.  But what I'm addressing is what kind of weight to give to the mass of partially interested people - IMO the greatest long-term good doesn't always correspond to the greatest numbers.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I believe this was talking more about the whole deal of Wizards basically being useful every now and then but spending the rest of their time standing around and similar issues, not status quo adventuring.




Oh, well I wouldn't mind seeing wizards evened out according to their resource depletion.  You could actually have both AFAICT, wizards could choose a few powerful spells, or many less powerful ones.  In any case, changing the wizard character class is a different issue from changing a basic aspect of the game.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> There are a great many characters in fiction who are highly skilled and experienced, but still make decisions based on things other than rationality and/or good resource management.




Getting a tatoo saying "I hate hobbits" isn't rational but then it doesn't have a bearing on the tactical aspects of the game, which is I think is the area under consideration.  Off the top of my head those characters in fiction that act in strange ways during tactically important moments (Boromir) tend to be tragic heroes.  But then it's hard to say either way I guess.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Even if the "versimililtude" of the per-encounter model is less for you, it doesnt affect necessarily all the other aspects of the game. It doesnt even mean that it will "devolve into superficial encounters" anymoreso than it already has.




Sure, it means other aspects of the game will change to fit the established philosophy.  That's why I don't find it an overstatement to talk about the consequences of that.  It makes no sense to me that talk about a general practice and then only apply the change to one area of the game.  I think it's reasonable to assume that sooner, rather than later, all aspects of the game will conform to this new set of priorities.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> It might even be the oposite...remember, *we still know next to nothing about how its all actually going to work.*




In terms of reality, "nothing" is next to everything so I'm not sure this metaphor is verifiable.  However, I find the design philosophy expressed by Wyatt's quote to be pretty substantial.  As I've said before, I don't need to see the actual implementation if I can assume that they'll accomplish what they say they want to do.  As at least one other person has remarked, by the time we see the design it will be pointless to debate it.  Perhaps it's pointless now, but hopefully a little less so.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I am quite sure RPGs will still have plenty to offer, certainly to people in general, and even to you.




I hope.  You can't make everyone happy all of the time though.


----------



## FickleGM

Merlion said:
			
		

> One of the reasons that I like what little we know about this so far, at least as regards wizards, runs thus:
> 
> One of, if not the main reason I dislike Vancian magic is because it does not fit well with most depictions of how magic works. Having the practice of magic consist entirely of specific spells, that must be "prepared" and once used are gone, meaning you must "prepare" multiple copies to achieve the same effect twice etc, just doesnt work for me, conceptually.
> 
> Often in fiction, it seems to me that mage-types are capable of performing basic "magical actions" most or all of the time. Things like a very basic "magic ray" type attack, moving objects without touching them, creating light etc. Then they have their actual "spells", which often require more time and effort, may require materials and/or rituals of some kind etc, and usually have more powerful effects. They also require more specific conditions, and are often more taxing and can be done less frequently.
> 
> Now I realize that most fictional magic also has a fatigue element, either spiritual, physical or both, but you relatively rarely see that incorporated into RPGs for various reasons beyond the scope of what I am saying here. Although it does add another oddity to the Vancian system that a Wizard can run completely out of magic...but it doesnt adversly affect him in any other way.
> 
> I see this new system as being more in line with what I described above, and more like how magic is usually depicted than the Vancian system. Also it sounds as if it will solve the issue of Wizards often finding themselves unable to be very Wizardy pretty quickly, especially at low levels.



 Well, if Spellcraft is crafted to be similar to Use the Force in SWSE, then that would be an example of adaptable, "at will" uses of magic (although minor) that fictional wizards seem to be able to do.  Spells themselves may still be very precise (perhaps moreso with a 25-30 level breakdown) and will probably still be prepared...just on a per encounter basis (with the inherent, preparing of the same spell more than once).  That is just a guess, however, based on what is known from SWSE.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Oh, well I wouldn't mind seeing wizards evened out according to their resource depletion. You could actually have both AFAICT, wizards could choose a few powerful spells, or many less powerful ones. In any case, changing the wizard character class is a different issue from changing a basic aspect of the game.





  No...it isnt. The issue under discussion here is the inclusion of some degree of per day, per encounter and at will abilities to the classes in general...and to Wizards in particular. 




> Getting a tatoo saying "I hate hobbits" isn't rational but then it doesn't have a bearing on the tactical aspects of the game, which is I think is the area under consideration. Off the top of my head those characters in fiction that act in strange ways during tactically important moments (Boromir) tend to be tragic heroes. But then it's hard to say either way I guess.






  What difference does it make? The point is, even experienced individuals are still quite capable of making decisions based on factors other than whats most tactical sound, for reasons personal or circumstantial.




> Sure, it means other aspects of the game will change to fit the established philosophy. That's why I don't find it an overstatement to talk about the consequences of that. It makes no sense to me that talk about a general practice and then only apply the change to one area of the game. I think it's reasonable to assume that sooner, rather than later, all aspects of the game will conform to this new set of priorities.





  To me, the whole discussion of playstyles is mostly irrelevent. People are going to play the game how they want to play it, regardless. I am discussing primarily the nature of the proposed mechanical changes, and there effect on combat and class balance within combat. 

  Right now as it stands, Wizards especially and spellcasters in general tend to "run out of steam" faster and more totally than other classes, especially at low levels. This generally means that the physical combat types are still wanting to continue, while the wizard wants to stop and rest, so he can actually be able to do things (by which I mean the things he plays his class to do.) So, either everyone stops, or everyone continues and the wizard is basically relagated to the sidelines. 


  None of this, to me, has much affect on other aspects of the game besides combat itself, and the choice of how frequently to rest. Obviously various bleed over can occur. My point however was that you seem to feel that these changes are going to essentially eliminate all aspects of versimilitude, realism, and possibly anything other than continious combat from the game, and turn it into WoW. I am saying that your (seemingly) coming to that conclusion because of one aspect of things is overdoing it a bit.




> In terms of reality, "nothing" is next to everything so I'm not sure this metaphor is verifiable. However, I find the design philosophy expressed by Wyatt's quote to be pretty substantial. As I've said before, I don't need to see the actual implementation if I can assume that they'll accomplish what they say they want to do. As at least one other person has remarked, by the time we see the design it will be pointless to debate it. Perhaps it's pointless now, but hopefully a little less so.





  Again, your missing my point. My point is, all we know is that characters will have per day, per encounter, and at will abilities. The devil is in the execution. I am assuming that even if they wish to put forth a certain design philosophy, the execution of the mechanics will allow for the accomadation of more than one play style.





> I hope. You can't make everyone happy all of the time though.





  Yep. Which means all the designers can do is what they think best because no matter what they do, some people will hate it.


----------



## Merlion

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Well, if Spellcraft is crafted to be similar to Use the Force in SWSE, then that would be an example of adaptable, "at will" uses of magic (although minor) that fictional wizards seem to be able to do.  Spells themselves may still be very precise (perhaps moreso with a 25-30 level breakdown) and will probably still be prepared...just on a per encounter basis (with the inherent, preparing of the same spell more than once).  That is just a guess, however, based on what is known from SWSE.





 I disagree, at least that thats all their will be too it, based on what they have said so far about 4e. What has been said, I thought, is that wizards will have their Vancian spells, but then have other magical non spell abilities some of which are per encounter, some at will, and perhaps some per day as well. And these abilities, not Spellcraft, will represent what i was refering too.


----------



## FickleGM

Merlion said:
			
		

> I disagree, at least that thats all their will be too it, based on what they have said so far about 4e. What has been said, I thought, is that wizards will have their Vancian spells, but then have other magical non spell abilities some of which are per encounter, some at will, and perhaps some per day as well. And these abilities, not Spellcraft, will represent what i was refering too.



 Ah yes, I was only referring to spells, not to the entire repertoire of Wizardly abilities.  What those are remains to be seen, but I agree that there will be more.  Also, with the de-emphasis on the Vancian system, my initial take on spells may be way off.

Either way, I'm excited to see how it turns out.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> One of, if not the main reason I dislike Vancian magic is because it does not fit well with most depictions of how magic works.




If this were Wyatt's design goal then that would be fine but it's not AFAICT.  The current resource model is not inextricably linked to Vancian magic.  The "9:00-9:15" problem could just as easily occur within a spell point system.

Furthermore, other than in super-hero type stories the workings of magic are left relatively vague.  RPGs have to stand a level of logical scrutiny that novels don't because the players can actually play around with the elements of the world - and find loop holes, problem areas, and make the world seem like an odd fit for the rules.  The problems with trying to fit a novel to a game were already noted in the old days, I'll try not to restate those arguments anymore than I already have.

Just look at what happened in combat in 3E.  People probably wanted a level of tactical detail that wasn't present in the "minute long melee round" of 2E and prior.  Be careful what you wish for I guess is the lesson.  Now it's pretty common to hear people complain about how long combat takes.  Now it's pretty common to hear people complain about how long it takes to stat up characters and monsters (just look at one of the last Dungeon editorials for an example of this complaint from a professional).

Some of the problems that you seem to have with Vancian magic could be solved within a system that's still basically Vancian, or other systems that still don't use a "per-encounter" resource model.  You appear to be asking for far more than what you need to solve the problems described.


----------



## Celebrim

Merlion said:
			
		

> Right now as it stands, Wizards especially and spellcasters in general tend to "run out of steam" faster and more totally than other classes, especially at low levels. This generally means that the physical combat types are still wanting to continue, while the wizard wants to stop and rest, so he can actually be able to do things (by which I mean the things he plays his class to do.) So, either everyone stops, or everyone continues and the wizard is basically relagated to the sidelines.




Not that it is important, but if the spellcaster is any good at what they do, it tends to play out in the opposite fashion.  The spellcaster takes a secondary role and hoards thier resources through much of the crawl, and then something big and scary looking is encountered and the fighter goes, "Yikes!  Some help here!?!?!", and then the spellcaster goes nova.  And at higher levels, it tends to be, "My scrying indicates there is a big scary thing in the next room.  Everybody, time to cowboy up."



> The devil is in the execution.




Indeed.  But so far I'm getting less and less hopeful that I'll like the meal when they insist on putting things like beets, mayonaise, duck, parsnips, and mint in it.  I undestand other people like these things and have been savoring the thought of them, but even if the execution is good its not something I would have ordered for myself nor is it likely to be my favorite dish.

It's like an episode of 'Iron Designer' where the main ingredient is one I'm not particularly fond of.  Even if the results are impressive, so what?  You want me to eat that?


----------



## Merlion

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Not that it is important, but if the spellcaster is any good at what they do,





  This is pretty much a relative concept. And even within a single defintion of "being any good at what they do", multiple ways of achieving it will be possible.





> The spellcaster takes a secondary role and hoards thier resources through much of the crawl, and then something big and scary looking is encountered and the fighter goes, "Yikes! Some help here!?!?!", and then the spellcaster goes nova





  But what if the player of the wizard actually wants to contribute most of the time, rather than every once in a while?




> It's like an episode of 'Iron Designer' where the main ingredient is one I'm not particularly fond of. Even if the results are impressive, so what? You want me to eat that?





  And now your missing my point. My point, to gizmo, was that he is assuming that a certain set of things are going to happen based on the scraps of information we have about this whole "per encounter" business. But, once we see the finished product, we may see that there are aspects of it, or of other things, that mostly deal with the worries presented.


----------



## med stud

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, as I said, that was the best point (IMHO) raised in that regard so far.
> 
> However, I would say that chess is tactically interesting only because both sides are trying to win.  Playing chess against someone who has no chance of beating you is boring; playing chess against someone who you have no chance of beating is equally boring (though perhaps more instructional).  In order to be interesting, each chess game must be an all-or-nothing affair where the outcome cannot be predicted in advance.
> 
> This jibes, IMHO, exactly with the problem Celebrim and Gizmo33 are describing with the "per encounter" model.




Here I don't agree. I play (maybe too) much civ 4; the challenge for me is not to beat the AI, I can do that at all difficulty levels. The challenge is about how I beat the computer, to try to find out interesting ways to win or just to feel the (a bit pathethic  ) rush of power as my tanks steamroll some backward nation. There doesn't have to be an element of all or nothing in tactics for it to be interesting.  



> EDIT:  Also, it should be noted that if the game has "per encounter" tactics (as all rpgs must) and also has operational tactics, perforce it must have more tactics than a game that just has "per encounter" tactics, unless there is a significant difference in the level of the "per encounter" tactics between the two games.
> 
> Using the chess example, if you played a series of three games of chess, and each pawn that you lost in the first two games was not replenished, but you needed to win the game to move on, the loss of pawns in those games would be more serious, and would perforce require more tactical considerations than three unrelated games of chess in a row.




In that example it wouldn't mean more tactics, just different tactics. Presently, it is a tactical decision _if_ you will use one of your fireballs in a given combat or not; if you can use fireballs/ encounter, the decision will instead be _when_ you will use your fireball or fireballs in the combat. Different outset but it still takes use of tactics. The alternative to the current way of doing things is not some mindless blasting (or I really hope so).



> Even in the case of Yahoo! Games, where winning at chess affects your ranking (so that ranking becomes a sort of metagame for some), it is easy to witness how the operational level affects tactics at the "per encounter" level -- some people abandon boards to attempt to force the other player to quit (thus winning), some people refuse to play against anyone who has a chance of winning, etc.  These are not generally things that happen when there are only "per encounter" rules in place.
> 
> The purpose of ranking (so that you can find someone close to your level in play) instead became a metagame reward system that effectively subverts the original purpose.  It is my fear that 4e, like 3e, will have these same sorts of problems.
> RC




I don't understand how D&D in any edition could get that kind of problem, especially not because of the rules system. Those people do it to max their level (like they did in Starcraft when I was active (and probably still do)). The closest analogy I could come to in D&D to the situation you describe is if PCs would avoid encounters where their resources would be expended. I suppose that's not what you meant?


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> If this were Wyatt's design goal then that would be fine but it's not AFAICT.  The current resource model is not inextricably linked to Vancian magic.  The "9:00-9:15" problem could just as easily occur within a spell point system.
> .






  See what I said about how in the end, people are going to play how they want to play. If a given group insists on being at 100% for every encounter, then they are going to rest/reset whatever after every encounter, regardless.




> Furthermore, other than in super-hero type stories the workings of magic are left relatively vague





  Hmm....I guess you've never read Zelazny's Changling/Madwand books, or Maggie Furie's Aurian series, or the Edding's Belgariad/Malloreaon or Elenium/Tamuli stories, or any of various others in which the workings of magic are made at least reasonbly clear.




> RPGs have to stand a level of logical scrutiny that novels don't because the players can actually play around with the elements of the world - and find loop holes, problem areas,





  You really think characters in a novel cant do that?




> Some of the problems that you seem to have with Vancian magic could be solved within a system that's still basically Vancian, or other systems that still don't use a "per-encounter" resource model. You appear to be asking for far more than what you need to solve the problems described.





  I've already said that that what we know so far of what they are doing with 4e DOES solve most of my conceptual problems, just as virtually any system that isn't "fire and forget" memorization and nothing else would. I've also stated that, from what little we know, it will solve my issue of wizards quickly being rendered non-magical, especially at low levels.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> No...it isnt. The issue under discussion here is the inclusion of some degree of per day, per encounter and at will abilities to the classes in general...and to Wizards in particular.




Any significant degree of "per-day" abilities in the game does not significantly change the fundemental "problem" that Wyatt identified in the quote.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> What difference does it make? The point is, even experienced individuals are still quite capable of making decisions based on factors other than whats most tactical sound, for reasons personal or circumstantial.




Then let your players continue on in the dungeon when they're down to 2 hitpoints!  Why change a fundemental tactical aspect of the game if your players are accustomed to ignoring those anyway?  People may act irrationally, but the world probably continues to be rational.  What you want to do is reward the behavior - change the rational fundementals of the world - essentially make being irrational a rational act (or an act of no consequence).



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> So, either everyone stops, or everyone continues and the wizard is basically relagated to the sidelines.




So fix this!      I am totally for this, but the rationale behind the "per-encounter" design goes far beyond just balancing out the wizard character class.  The justification suggests that *no* character, under any circumstances should ever suffer any consequences for prolonged exertion - no resource loss, no fatigue, no nothing.  20 Armageddon-level battles per day, as long as you rest a minute between each one.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> None of this, to me, has much affect on other aspects of the game besides combat itself, and the choice of how frequently to rest.




The development of the game world and the logical consequences of the dealing with the "operational" aspects of the game (as Celebrim calls them) go beyond combat and potentially extend to every other aspect of the game (if you're handling these things in the ways that have been suggested).  If a continual light spell were a "per-encounter" ability with no permanent resource cost, the whole town would be lit up all of the time - that's not a "combat only" or "resting only" situation.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> My point however was that you seem to feel that these changes are going to essentially eliminate all aspects of versimilitude, realism, and possibly anything other than continious combat from the game,




No.  I'll try to be clear:  it's not this particular change only.  It's the *justification* for the change.  The expressed set of priorities that 4E seems like it has.  *Those* things are what will change all aspects of the game - if taken to their logical and sensible conclusion ("sensible" from the perspective of the pro-"per-encounter resource" opinion).  They'll get around to every aspect of the game and make sure it has all the same properties as combat.  Why not?  Why would the definition of what's fun and what isn't change between subsystems?  



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I am assuming that even if they wish to put forth a certain design philosophy, the execution of the mechanics will allow for the accomadation of more than one play style.




That's a very bold assumption IMO.  First of all, why have a design philosophy and then choose not to apply to one or more aspects of the game?  Perhaps for "backwards compatibility" reasons, but I see 1E DnD as having less and less bearing on future designs.  Secondly, I really don't think you can have more than one play style in terms of resource expenditure because it goes too much to the core of game balance.  If you don't believe me, just let wizards cast whatever spells they want when they want right now in 3E.  You won't do that because the balance aspect of your game will go haywire, because the current spells were designed at a power level appropriate for a resource management style of game.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The justification suggests that *no* character, under any circumstances should ever suffer any consequences for prolonged exertion - no resource loss, no fatigue, no nothing. 20 Armageddon-level battles per day, as long as you rest a minute between each one





  And yet you wonder why people keep telling you that you exaggerate, overstate, and use absurdly extreme examples, and come to incredibly extreme conclusions?   





> That's a very bold assumption IMO




And your assumption that the designers intend to take the exact same philosophy that they are using in the "per encounter" issue and apply it totally to each and every aspect of the game is at least as bold, and has a lot less foundation.

  I think the designers fully realize that people want a sense of "realism" or whatever you want to call it, in their games. I think they will be conciously aproaching each aspect of the game with that in mind. Because they have always done so. The results have not always lived up to everyones desires in that regard, but I personally feel that they have and will always take this into account.

  And they have always stated, especially from 3.0 onward, that they wish to accomadate multiple play styles, so I see no reason to believe that will change all of a sudden.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> Hmm....I guess you've never read Zelazny's Changling/Madwand books, or Maggie Furie's Aurian series, or the Edding's Belgariad/Malloreaon or Elenium/Tamuli stories, or any of various others in which the workings of magic are made at least reasonbly clear.




I read Zelazny's Amber series, and that certainly has a lot of magic without a lot of a sense of mechanics.  Then again I didn't get my PhD in it.  I read the first couple of the Belgariad books but I don't really remember them, or recall anything notable about the magic system.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> You really think characters in a novel cant do that?




Yes, I do - character's in books aren't real.  I must be missing something.


----------



## med stud

Imaro said:
			
		

> This all depends on how you look at the game of chess and an encounter.  In an actual game you are steadily dealing with depleting resources over extended time(IMHO this is way different from the avg fight that lasts 3-5 rnds, though I might be mistaken).  It all depends on how you view the game, but unless you gain a piece by moving a pawn to the last square, or are playing against someone way below your skill level, you will never have the resources you had in the opening move.  IMHO each move is an "encounter" as it sets up a different dynamic that isn't the same as before that move. The game can still be won by a clever, or more skilled opponent even with less resources, and I enjoy this aspect of chess as well.  You look at the entire game as one encounter, I look at the entire game as the same as an entire game session of D&D.  My analogy of chess and per-encounter abilities is more similar to every time you take a piece...you get most of yours back, YMMV.



The difference is how long a game isn't really important for the tactical side of things; the importance is the decisions you make while it lasts. So a combat is 3-5 rounds, then you have to make those rounds count, just like in chess or a poker tour (to use the extreme example of number of rounds).

Your are right about ending a chess game with fewer resources that you started out with, that's the nature of chess. This goes for D&D as well if you view each game of chess like one combat in D&D. After a combat of appropriate level you will have less resources than you started out with, even if you win. Your last part (as I understand it) seems to be that you think that you will be reckless with your resources if you get them back each encounter. Well as I see it you can use them more but you have to consider what resource is best when instead of if you should use it at all in the combat.



> I'm not saying tactics won't exsist...but I can easily see players falling into a sort of routine with their per-encounter & at-will abilities, while saving the per-day for the big or last encounter that night.  All the time? No, but I could see it happening alot, even with varied scenery etc.  I find it hard to believe that after a few sessions PC's won't find optimized combo's either within their own abilities or working in tangent and while they may not be practical in every situation, winning a combat in D&D boils down to two main factors; deal more propotional damage to opponents and take less proportional damage from opponents.
> 
> The designer's could totally surprise me and make every ability either so original it can be used in only a few singular situations(thus promoting outside the box thinking) or so applicable all can be used in any situation(they're really all equal so it's now a style thing, which doesn't really promote tactics).  But my first instinct is there will be abilities that are just better than others...only time will tell.



I would like to see a game without optimization. They exist in D&D, Starcraft, DOTA, soccer, you name it. What a game should do to be interesting is to make the game so that the answer to "what is best?" is "it depends." This hasn't anything to do if you get abilities per encounter or if you get them to use over a day. If they make the game so that it always makes sense to use one or two abilities, or even worse, if they make the game so that a certain order of using abilities is always optimal then they have failed utterly. So, with varied "scenery" (if that's what you call different enemies) comes different optimal combos, enough so that it hopefully won't get boring.

Note: This is if you are playing the game as a war game, usually, at least IME, battles get interesting because of context etc as well.

PS: Dealing more damage than you take is a good summary of how to win conflicts in the real world as well . What all strategists and leaders have been going after in history is how to do this as good as possible with the tools available.



> IMHO the per-day depletion forces you to consider more variables when taking an action and I like that, it's long-term strategy and thought.  I mean in the end it really is a style thing.




I agree with the last sentence .


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I read Zelazny's Amber series, and that certainly has a lot of magic without a lot of a sense of mechanics.  Then again I didn't get my PhD in it.  I read the first couple of the Belgariad books but I don't really remember them, or recall anything notable about the magic system.





  In Changling/Madwand a good deal of time is spent on the nature of magic. Mostly how mages percieve and use it, but also a good bit is implied about its limitations and "rules."

  In the Belgariad, theres a couple different forms of magic, although they are all spoken of as being aspects of the same thing. The main one is "sorcerery" or "The Will and the Word." Basically you think what you want, speak a word and it happens. However, it has a number of rules and limitations which are spelled out. It creates "noise" that other magic users can "hear." It is mentally and physically tiring, and overextending oneself that way will lead to death. And there are certain things that can't be done, or dont work well...you can't "uncreate" anything, and teleportation is usually not viable. 

  I could go into the Elenium/Tamuli as well, but I think you get the idea. There are certainly examples of literature were the workings of magic are not "vague."




> Yes, I do - character's in books aren't real. I must be missing something





  Being a writer/storyteller myself....yea, you are. Characters in books are quite real, and I often find them, and the story itself, telling me what to do. 

  But philosophical points aside, a character in a story with magic that does have known rules/limitations etc can most certainly find loopholes, weakness and the like as you spoke of.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> So, why is it not adversarial if the DM decides an encounter that must be met in a specific time frame and thus resource depletion is important and leading to the final encounters being more difficult, but it is adversarial if the DM just creates a difficult encounter?




I don't have time right now to write the essay required to adequately answer this question.  Perhaps I will be able to do so later.  I added the "YMMV, and probably does" bit because I knew I was unlikely to expand on this, and I knew that what seems largely self-evident to me would not seem largely self-evident to others.

(Although, I note, that a resource depletion scenario doesn't necessarily require a specific time frame, whereas the changes to 3.X that made a time frame "mandatory" in the hands of some DMs to run such a scenario has certainly led to claims of adversarial play.)

RC


----------



## Celebrim

Merlion said:
			
		

> But what if the player of the wizard actually wants to contribute most of the time, rather than every once in a while?




First, a good wizard contributes something all the time.  Even in 1st edition, a low level wizard was standing back there behind the front line hurling darts or daggers waiting for the right oppurtunity to drop his 'bomb' spells like sleep or web.  At higher levels, he'd have plenty of useful low level spells to throw around while he was hording his big guns, plus likely a wand or stave to use in a pinch, and he could still always throw things or occassionally swing a staff (since his main combat limitation of bad AC would likely be overcome at some point). 

Secondly, as I said, when a Wizard does choose to contribute, he really contributes.  In 1st edition, a fireball was practically a nuclear bomb.  No one denies how powerful a Wizard is in 3rd.  So in exchange for in theory not shining quite so often (not as durable), the Wizard in theory is balanced by shining more brightly (more powerful).  If D&D was a wargame, the Wizards would be artillery.  BOOM!

Don't want to be the artillery?  Don't play a wizard.

Of course, this model doesn't work at all if you only do one encounter per day.

That said, if Mearl's past work is any guide, the direction D&D is moving in is 'everyone is a spell caster' (in practice if not necessarily by flavor).


----------



## med stud

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So you are saying that chess makes a good analogy for RPGs?  Do you think RPGs are competitive games like chess?  Do you think chess is as popular as RPGs (for example, do you think that as many people play chess for as long of a period as play WoW)?  The tenth  time you played chess, did your queen acquire the power to jump peices, and your king get an armor upgrade?




Is chess a good analogy for RPGs as a whole? 
-No. I used chess as an example of a tactical game.

Do I think that RPGs are competitive games? 
-Defenitly not.

Do I think that chess is as popular as RPGs? 
-What has that to do with my chess analogy?

The tenth time etc, did my queen get an upgrade? 
-Again, why do you ask that? I used chess as an example of a tactical game where your resources renew everytime you play it.
[/quote]



> I have never claimed that per-encounter powers will be a detriment to tactics.  If you are talking tactics, then you've missed my point.




My answer to your post hadn't anything to do with tactics so I can't see how I missed any of your points.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> And yet you wonder why people keep telling you that you exaggerate, overstate, and use absurdly extreme examples, and come to incredibly extreme conclusions?




I don't wonder about that!     I exaggerate because it helps to clarify what I'm talking about.  As I said to Hong, often times without "exaggeration" people can stonewall over irrelevant issues.  For example, I'll say "what if there's a 1000 lb weight that you can't lift, then..." and folks respond "well I *can* lift 1,000 lb weight, so everything you're saying is wrong" when the actual weight wasn't the issue, the relevant characteristic was that you couldn't lift it!  So the exaggeration IMO establishes the conditions in the IF part of my reasoning.  If you find there is some fundemental different between 2 Armageddon and 20 Armageddon battles that changes the nature of the argument, then identify those things (or not).  

In any case this is getting too personal if you're having trouble discussing this because of perceived personality issues.  I don't care that to that extent, I'll let the situation take care of it's self like it did in the 2E days.  (Or at least try to give this a rest for a few days and let some other folks have the floor).


----------



## Raven Crowking

med stud said:
			
		

> Here I don't agree. I play (maybe too) much civ 4; the challenge for me is not to beat the AI, I can do that at all difficulty levels. The challenge is about how I beat the computer, to try to find out interesting ways to win or just to feel the (a bit pathethic  ) rush of power as my tanks steamroll some backward nation. There doesn't have to be an element of all or nothing in tactics for it to be interesting.




Sorry, but I don't play any civ 4, so I can't comment on whether or not what you're saying here is a counter to my points.  Why not stick with chess for a momment?  Surely you concede that your chess-as-encounter analogy fails on the basis of the all-or-nothing nature of the game?


----------



## Merlion

Celebrim said:
			
		

> First, a good wizard




 ....is one that is enjoyed by his/her player and his/her group.




> contributes something all the time. Even in 1st edition, a low level wizard was standing back there behind the front line hurling darts or daggers waiting for the right oppurtunity to drop his 'bomb' spells like sleep or web





  Sigh. I forgot to add "contribute as a wizard."

I, and most people I have known/seen/read about want to be able to play a wizard, and contribute most of the time *as a wizard* as in doing magic, not throwing darts. And as I said some while back, remember also that contributing doesnt =attacking/damaging, it can mean other things. 




> Don't want to be the artillery? Don't play a wizard.





  So a wizard who chooses to focus on incapaciting enemies, or summoning monsters, or enhancing allies or anything other than "novaing" isnt a "good wizard?"




> That said, if Mearl's past work is any guide, the direction D&D is moving in is 'everyone is a spell caster'





  With the exception of the Fighter and Rogue this is already largely the case, on both levels.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't wonder about that!     I exaggerate because it helps to clarify what I'm talking about.  As I said to Hong, often times without "exaggeration" people can stonewall over irrelevant issues.  For example, I'll say "what if there's a 1000 lb weight that you can't lift, then..." and folks respond "well I *can* lift 1,000 lb weight, so everything you're saying is wrong" when the actual weight wasn't the issue, the relevant characteristic was that you couldn't lift it!  So the exaggeration IMO establishes the conditions in the IF part of my reasoning.  If you find there is some fundemental different between 2 Armageddon and 20 Armageddon battles that changes the nature of the argument, then identify those things (or not).





  I understand that, and overstatement and exaggeration can work to that purpose. However some times, especially when its constant, it has the oposite effect, especially online.

  I assume you mean what you say. And I respond to it on that basis. Especially since almost everything you say is an exaggeration. It makes it difficult to respond if I dont know what you actually mean...the exaggeration, or something else?


  And you have stated basically that you feel that the issues you see with the per encounter thing are going to basically bleed over into everything. I'm saying its not safe to assume that.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> Basically you think what you want, speak a word and it happens.




Like Wish?



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> However, it has a number of rules and limitations which are spelled out.




Like what?  That would be the crux of an example about limitations.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> It creates "noise" that other magic users can "hear."




Wishing for a million gold pieces would probably create a loud "ka-ching!" noise that others would hear.  The true consequences of other wizards hearing spells cast is that you'd have to know EVERYONE ELSE in the area, what their hearing capabilities are, and what they're response is going to be.  The level of complexity to render this plausible as a game element would be IMO the ultimate fantasy of a simulationist.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> It is mentally and physically tiring, and overextending oneself that way will lead to death.




So they only adventure from 9:00 to 9:15 or else they'll die?    



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> And there are certain things that can't be done, or dont work well...you can't "uncreate" anything, and teleportation is usually not viable.




Well the specifics of that question would have to be answered for the spells to be useful as game mechanics.  I'm assuming Eddison provides these details?  Players IMO aren't going to accept "well you just can't do it and I don't exactly have a reason right now" like the reader of a novel would accept that.  



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I could go into the Elenium/Tamuli as well, but I think you get the idea. There are certainly examples of literature were the workings of magic are not "vague."




Your examples are exactly an example of what I mean by "vague", they're not particularly useful as game mechanics.  Now granted the reason for the vagueness might be the space limitations of the message board rather than Eddision's descriptions - but you didn't make it clear either way AFAICT.  The details that you've provided so far do not hold up to the level of detail IMO required by an RPG.  Perhaps just take one narrow ability, like teleport, and describe Eddison's complete working system for it.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Characters in books are quite real, and I often find them, and the story itself, telling me what to do.




There are several levels of possible interpretation here.  Rather than doubt your sanity, I will assume that you are just being creative about the definition of the word "real" et al.  In any case, sounds of incredulity coming from my players are more real to me than those coming from imaginary voices in my head.  I'm not my own best judge though, which you, conversely, probably find crazy.  At this point you're appealing to a kind of reality that I don't know anything about, which at least raises the possibility that everything I'm saying about 4E could be true and you will still have a good time playing it.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Of course, this model doesn't work at all if you only do one encounter per day.



That's exactly it. I would like to have one or two encounters per day while keeping class balance. The current system doesn't let me do that but it seems 4e will. Thus 4e > 3e.

Right now it's very noticeable in our games that characters who can 'go nova' - clerics with righteous might and divine power, gishes with arcane strike, psychic warriors, wizards with sudden metamagic - are far superior to fighters and rogues.

Dungeon bashes have been fairly rare throughout my 25 years of rpging. Though personally I've become very interested in them recently, looking at classic modules and trying to understand how/why they work. Nonetheless I'd like the 'modern' style of 1 or 2 encounters to work too.


----------



## Celebrim

Merlion said:
			
		

> ....is one that is enjoyed by his/her player and his/her group.




I can agree without harming my point in any way.  For example, I could claim that there is no need for a wizard to be balanced and playable to contribute enjoyment to his/her group, and be done with this discussion if I so choose.  Why worry about the mechanics if whether something is fun doesn't depend on the mechanics?  Obviously, because we generally agree that certain mechanical factors contribute to the fun of RPGs. 



> Sigh. I forgot to add "contribute as a wizard."




Wizards are what wizards do.  Very few wizards of even fantasy literature where issues like play balance and equal oppurtunity to be the focus of attention don't matter in the slightest, Wizards - and most certainly novice ones - rarely go around slinging spells continually.  Rather, it is assumed that there is some sort of limitation on thier ability of some sort.  The notion that to 'contribute as a wizard' I must never run out of spells to fire off is a rather strange one to me.

And even while I'm sympathetic to the argument that low level wizards aren't 'fun to play' and aren't balanced against barbarians, fighters, rogues and other non-spell casting classes at low levels of play, such sympathy doesn't necessarily translate to agreement with 4e's approach to solving this problem.



> I, and most people I have known/seen/read about want to be able to play a wizard, and contribute most of the time *as a wizard* as in doing magic, not throwing darts. And as I said some while back, remember also that contributing doesnt =attacking/damaging, it can mean other things.




It certainly can.  In 3rd edition, even at low levels, Wizards tend to be 'knowledge-guy', as in, 'Help! Wizard!! Please make a 'saving throw vs. ignorance' (ei knowledge check) and get the DM to tell us what is going on!!!'  



> So a wizard who chooses to focus on incapaciting enemies, or summoning monsters, or enhancing allies or anything other than "novaing" isnt a "good wizard?"




Certainly not.  These are all different ways of 'going nova' (using limited use powerful abilities/resources that greatly reduce the difficulty of an encounter).

It's funny that you should mention that though, because its MUCH easier to balance the Wizard for at will and per encounter abilities if you strongly limit those abilities to 'blast' type magic, and from our play testing reports that's exactly what we are seeing. 

So, if your problem is that you don't want to see the role of a wizard defined too narrowly, then I suggest you are griping at the wrong person.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> It makes it difficult to respond if I dont know what you actually mean...the exaggeration, or something else?




Ok, I'll try to be more careful.  I recently (on this thread somewhere) used the example of fighting 2 Armageddon battles in a day and someone responded with "but I like fighting two armageddon battles!"  This is what I'm talking about.  I should have just said 20 because my point was that there really isn't a limit (or at least it's greater than 20) assuming:
1.  a resource depleting battle takes less than a half an hour
2.  a resource depleting battle takes 1 minute to recover from
3.  None of the battles have killed the PCs.

Assuming these 3, rather uncontroversial things (as far as 4E goes), then 30 minutes x 20 battles equals 10 hours - certainly doable within a 24 hour day.

So "20 Armageddon battles", while admittedly extreme, is actually within the bounds of the proposed rule system - only DM fiat or a certain kind of engineering would prevent it.  Take the Vault of the Drow, and in an environment like that it's DEFINITELY plausible, if not likely.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> And you have stated basically that you feel that the issues you see with the per encounter thing are going to basically bleed over into everything. I'm saying its not safe to assume that.




But if you really believe that resource attrition and similar things are "unfun" then why in the world not apply that philosophy to the rest of the game?  Why stop at combat and leave the "problem" in other areas of the game?  I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that a philosophy that has general applicability will be applied generally.


----------



## FickleGM

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll try to be more careful.  I recently (on this thread somewhere) used the example of fighting 2 Armageddon battles in a day and someone responded with "but I like fighting two armageddon battles!"  This is what I'm talking about.  I should have just said 20 because might point was that there really isn't a limit (or at least it's greater than 20) assuming:
> 1.  a resource depleting battle takes less than a half an hour
> 2.  a resource depleting battle takes 1 minute to recover from
> 3.  None of the battles have killed the PCs.
> 
> Assuming these 3, rather uncontroversial things (as far as 4E goes), then 30 minutes x 20 battles equals 10 hours - certainly doable within a 24 hour day.
> 
> So "20 Armageddon battles", while admittedly extreme, is actually within the bounds of the proposed rule system - only DM fiat or a certain kind of engineering would prevent it.  Take the Vault of the Drow, and in an environment like that it's DEFINITELY plausible, if not likely.
> 
> 
> 
> But if you really believe that resource attrition and similar things are "unfun" then why in the world not apply that philosophy to the rest of the game?  Why stop at combat and leave the "problem" in other areas of the game?  I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that a philosophy that has general applicability will be applied generally.



 Just to make sure that we are on the same page, I am assuming that you mean *certain per-encounter class abilities*, when you say "2. a resource depleting battle takes 1 minute to recover from" in your post.

Because, some abilities will be per-day and non-class abilities, such as ammunition may still be used up and not recoverable within 1 minute.


----------



## Raven Crowking

If a good wizard 



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> ....is one that is enjoyed by his/her player and his/her group.




then how can _anything_ not be "contributing as a wizard"?

Either there is some outside criteria by which one can define "a good wizard" or there is not.

RC

(BTW, Gandalf, for example, casts few spells but often attacks with weapons...he uses Orcrist more than he uses spells in both The Hobbit and LotR.)


----------



## Celebrim

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> That's exactly it. I would like to have one or two encounters per day while keeping class balance. The current system doesn't let me do that but it seems 4e will. Thus 4e > 3e.
> 
> Right now it's very noticeable in our games that characters who can 'go nova' - clerics with righteous might and divine power, gishes with arcane strike, psychic warriors, wizards with sudden metamagic - are far superior to fighters and rogues.
> 
> Dungeon bashes have been fairly rare throughout my 25 years of rpging. Though personally I've become very interested in them recently, looking at classic modules and trying to understand how/why they work. Nonetheless I'd like the 'modern' style of 1 or 2 encounters to work too.




I completely sympathize with this.  You are absolutely right.  There is a serious problem here.  Somewhere between 7th and 9th level, it becomes pointless to play a non-spellcaster under the current rules if your DM's game (or the game you as a DM want to run) tends to be heavily focused on events and tactics rather than locations and 'operations'.  And for you, 4e may be the right system.

Likewise, somewhere around 13th level, under the current rules the mundane classes (fighter, rogue, and to a lesser extent barbarian) start becoming very unattractive, because spell-casters increasingly have access to large numbers of 'game breaking' spells that simply outclass anything a fighter or rogue can do.  So yes this is a problem, and I'm not unsympathetic to wanting to fix it.

I'm just saying that its pretty clear already 4e that its not my game.  What I wanted was a far less revolutionary approach to this problem, because in my game its not nearly as big of a problem as it is in people who play alot of high level games with low amounts of dungeon crawling.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Like Wish?
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?  That would be the crux of an example about limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> Wishing for a million gold pieces would probably create a loud "ka-ching!" noise that others would hear.  The true consequences of other wizards hearing spells cast is that you'd have to know EVERYONE ELSE in the area, what their hearing capabilities are, and what they're response is going to be.  The level of complexity to render this plausible as a game element would be IMO the ultimate fantasy of a simulationist.
> 
> 
> 
> So they only adventure from 9:00 to 9:15 or else they'll die?
> 
> 
> 
> Well the specifics of that question would have to be answered for the spells to be useful as game mechanics.  I'm assuming Eddison provides these details?  Players IMO aren't going to accept "well you just can't do it and I don't exactly have a reason right now" like the reader of a novel would accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> Your examples are exactly an example of what I mean by "vague", they're not particularly useful as game mechanics.  Now granted the reason for the vagueness might be the space limitations of the message board rather than Eddision's descriptions - but you didn't make it clear either way AFAICT.  The details that you've provided so far do not hold up to the level of detail IMO required by an RPG.  Perhaps just take one narrow ability, like teleport, and describe Eddison's complete working system for it.
> .








  Sigh. The magic of a novel isnt usually going to map exactly to game mechanics, no. But you seem to have diverged off into things other than what I was talking about with that anyway. You also seem to have trouble seperating conceptual from mechanical.

  You said, or I thought you said, that I was basically expecting to much of a game system to depict the nature of magic in novels etc because magic in literature is always too vague. I was giving you examples of how in many novels, the way magic works is anything but vague. 

  In most fiction, if a mage knows how to perform a given "magical action" can do so whenever he wants, up to whatever limits are placed on using a lot of magic, wether it be physical fatigue or just a depletion of "magical energy" or whatever.

  In the D&D Vancian system, however, even if a mage knows a given spell, he can only cast it as many times as he has it prepared. If I am an 18th level wizard and prepare only one Fireball spell, I can only cast Fireball once, even though once I cast the Fireball I still have a great many other powerful effects at my command.


  These are the sorts of differences and the type of thing I am talking about.





> Like Wish?





  Slightly, but not really. Much more organic and flexible than Wish. Examples of specific things people did in the books include changing into animals, levitation, transformation/transmutation of various types, short range translocation, projecting energy, basically all the usual stuff. 





> Wishing for a million gold pieces would probably create a loud "ka-ching!" noise that others would hear. The true consequences of other wizards hearing spells cast is that you'd have to know EVERYONE ELSE in the area, what their hearing capabilities are, and what they're response is going to be. The level of complexity to render this plausible as a game element would be IMO the ultimate fantasy of a simulationist.





  See, I was never talking about it as a specific game element. I was talking about it as an example of details given to the reader and known to those in the story about the way magic works, thus contributing to it not being "vague"





> which at least raises the possibility that everything I'm saying about 4E could be true and you will still have a good time playing it.





  There are other reasons for which I probably would have very mixed feelings about playing pure 4e or any pure version of D&D, mostly the contiued existence of the Cleric and overemphasis on "divine" stuff. My point is that I doubt that everything your saying is going to be true, and I dont see how you can come to that conclusion either based on what little we know. Even if what your saying about "per encounter" ends up being so, it does not mean as you seem to think, that the same philosophy will be applied to everything, or that there wont be factors to keep the style of play you prefer fully viable.


----------



## Raven Crowking

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Just to make sure that we are on the same page, I am assuming that you mean *certain per-encounter class abilities*, when you say "2. a resource depleting battle takes 1 minute to recover from" in your post.





Why "certain"?  Why not "all"?


----------



## gizmo33

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Because, some abilities will be per-day and non-class abilities, such as ammunition may still be used up and not recoverable within 1 minute.




(I'll use bold to emphasize things that I really thought would have addressed this issue by now).  *If significant abilities are "per-day" abilities, then the core problem described by Wyatt does not change and the 4E design therefore will not fix the problem that Wyatt identifies.*  Wyatt *does not* AFAICT claim that he wants to balance up the resource depletion rates of the wizard vs. the fighter.  What he claims is that *adventuring from 9:00-9:15 and then having to rest is unfun.*  Whether or not you rest as a result of ammunition, spells, hit points, *it doesn't matter to Wyatt's point* AFAICT.

If all we're talking about is keeping characters from "nova"-ing, and giving wizards and fighters the same endurance factor then I have far less objections.

But AFAICT many people on this thread are arguing for a *fundemental overhaul* of the way resources are consumed in DnD.  They tell Celebrim that they'd be happy with a game that had no "operation" aspect to it.  *Getting to the climax of the adventure is mandatory* in this gaming style.  As long as there remain significant daily resources, and PCs can do a heck of a lot of fighting in a 15 minute period (that's 150 rounds!  So, IMO, yes.), then the "9:00-9:15" problem becomes the "9:00-9:30" problem because now the wizards are lasting as long as the fighters, but AFAICT this doesn't address Wyatt's issue at all.

(Wyatt and other folks could (and might have) considered the possibility that the fact that a resource depleting battle can occur in the span of 60 seconds might be a big part of their problem.)


----------



## FickleGM

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why "certain"?  Why not "all"?



 Because I typed "certain" before adding "per-encounter" and forgot to edit it out.


----------



## Merlion

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Wizards are what wizards do. Very few wizards of even fantasy literature where issues like play balance and equal oppurtunity to be the focus of attention don't matter in the slightest, Wizards - and most certainly novice ones - rarely go around slinging spells continually. Rather, it is assumed that there is some sort of limitation on thier ability of some sort. The notion that to 'contribute as a wizard' I must never run out of spells to fire off is a rather strange one to me.







> It certainly can. In 3rd edition, even at low levels, Wizards tend to be 'knowledge-guy', as in, 'Help! Wizard!! Please make a 'saving throw vs. ignorance' (ei knowledge check) and get the DM to tell us what is going on!!!'





 Ok, let me be totally specific here.

To me, and most people I am familiar with, most of the time, contributing to combat as a wizard involves the use of magic to damage foes, incapacitate foes, kill foes, enhance allies, alter or control the battlefield etc etc and similar things. During combat, when your allies are already being attacked, making knowledge checks isnt likely to be terribly useful, and shooting off a crossbow or waving a dagger around isnt very "wizardy". This is one of the ways wizards contribute outside of, or at least immediately before combat.


  To me, the occasions where a wizard...or any character really, becomes ineffective in combat should be those ocassions when from time to time the party encounters a threat that is counter to that characters abilities. A Wizard for instance is going to find their abilities, especially their offensive ones, great reduced against a creature thats highly resistant to magic for example, and a rogue has great difficulty against things like oozes and undead (maybe even a little too much so, but its still an example of the concept I mean.) As oposed to the whole running out of gas before everyone else situation.


----------



## FickleGM

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> (I'll use bold to emphasize things that I really thought would have addressed this issue by now).  *If significant abilities are "per-day" abilities, then the core problem described by Wyatt does not change and the 4E design therefore will not fix the problem that Wyatt identifies.*  Wyatt *does not* AFAICT claim that he wants to balance up the resource depletion rates of the wizard vs. the fighter.  What he claims is that *adventuring from 9:00-9:15 and then having to rest is unfun.*  Whether or not you rest as a result of ammunition, spells, hit points, *it doesn't matter to Wyatt's point* AFAICT.
> 
> If all we're talking about is keeping characters from "nova"-ing, and giving wizards and fighters the same endurance factor then I have far less objections.
> 
> But AFAICT many people on this thread are arguing for a *fundemental overhaul* of the way resources are consumed in DnD.  They tell Celebrim that they'd be happy with a game that had no "operation" aspect to it.  *Getting to the climax of the adventure is mandatory* in this gaming style.  As long as there remain significant daily resources, and PCs can do a heck of a lot of fighting in a 15 minute period (that's 150 rounds!  So, IMO, yes.), then the "9:00-9:15" problem becomes the "9:00-9:30" problem because now the wizards are lasting as long as the fighters, but AFAICT this doesn't address Wyatt's issue at all.
> 
> (Wyatt and other folks could (and might have) considered the possibility that the fact that a resource depleting battle can occur in the span of 60 seconds might be a big part of their problem.)



 Gotchya.  As the thread keeps growing, I am sometimes confused as to what, exactly, is being argued (the general argument is obvious).

My stance remains that I am optimistic about the overall idea, but I hope that they don't remove all resource management.


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If a good wizard
> 
> 
> 
> then how can _anything_ not be "contributing as a wizard"?
> 
> Either there is some outside criteria by which one can define "a good wizard" or there is not.
> 
> RC
> 
> (BTW, Gandalf, for example, casts few spells but often attacks with weapons...he uses Orcrist more than he uses spells in both The Hobbit and LotR.)





  I was responding to Celebrim's assertions that a "good" wizard does X Y Z etc. Essentially that the "right" way to play a wizard is to sit back and watch and only cast a spell once in a while, and that want not to be forced into that somehow makes one a bad wizard player. 


Gandalf isnt a wizard, and is probably the worst possible example for this situation. The limitations on Gandalf's use of his powers have nothing to do with resources. They were philosophical in nature.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> If significant abilities are "per-day" abilities, then the core problem described by Wyatt does not change and the 4E design therefore will not fix the problem that Wyatt identifies.




I disagree. Even if significant (however you define the term) abilities are "per-day" abilities, the PCs won't have to rest once they're used up, so long as they also have significant abilities that are "per-encounter." They'll be able to continue on, and if the DM provides them an in-game incentive to do so (like a timed adventure), they probably will.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> a resource depleting battle takes 1 minute to recover from





1) We dont know how long per encounter abilites require to recharge

2) recovering your per encounter abilities is not totally recovering from an encounter.





> But if you really believe that resource attrition and similar things are "unfun" then why in the world not apply that philosophy to the rest of the game?




Because Combat is really the only situation where these things come up anyway.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> You also seem to have trouble seperating conceptual from mechanical.




We're talking about the mechanical aspects of magic.  To the degree that conceptual issues support/clarify mechanical issues then AFAICT it's relevant to the discussion.  Talking about conceptual issues that don't relate to the mechanical issues under discussion AFAICT makes no sense.  Call it "trouble" if you will, but I hope you see what I mean.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> You said, or I thought you said, that I was basically expecting to much of a game system to depict the nature of magic in novels etc because magic in literature is always too vague. I was giving you examples of how in many novels, the way magic works is anything but vague.




Yes "A is exactly like B.  A is nothing like B".  I get into these debates all of the time on the internet, and I have yet to figure out how to interject subtlety into this.  The way magic works in novels is vague to a degree that IME would not be useful in an RPG.  The preceeding statement falls into neither category of A being completely like B, or being completely unlike B, but if those are the only two statement patterns that I can choose from I'm afraid I just cannot make my point.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> In the D&D Vancian system, however, even if a mage knows a given spell, he can only cast it as many times as he has it prepared. If I am an 18th level wizard and prepare only one Fireball spell, I can only cast Fireball once, even though once I cast the Fireball I still have a great many other powerful effects at my command.




These particulars of the Vancian system I am less adamant in defending.  The Sorcerer character class *already* doesn't follow this paradigm, and yet *no mention* was made of that fact in Wyatt's statement AFAICT.  *For good reason*  Because this aspect of Vancian magic was not his problem.  And this aspect of Vancian magic is not addressed by going to a "per-encounter" resource model.  Spell points are typically a per-day resource, and you have the same potential "9:00-9:15" problem with them as you do with Vancian, even though AFAICT they address the problem you described above.  A "Sorcerer" type character class design already solves your problem, why is the "per-encounter" design important in this?



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Slightly, but not really. Much more organic and flexible than Wish. Examples of specific things people did in the books include changing into animals, levitation, transformation/transmutation of various types, short range translocation, projecting energy, basically all the usual stuff.




Wish duplicates any spell of 8th level or lower - including all of the powers you mention above.  I so far see no difference other than the use of the word "organic", the meaning of which in this context I am not certain.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> See, I was never talking about it as a specific game element. I was talking about it as an example of details given to the reader and known to those in the story about the way magic works, thus contributing to it not being "vague"




Well, let me restate, instead of vague, how about this:  novel magic is unsufficiently described to serve as a complete model for a game.  For this reason, you can't say that any given novel presents a workable magic system because it never puports to describe the magic system in it's entirety or in ways sufficient to be interacted with by persons other than the author who has a relatively limited agenda of telling his story.  Other than as a "Tolkienesque" mental excercise, development of such a magic system would serve no purpose in telling the story.

The priorities of a game in this way are significantly different.  The intention of a game is to allow players to, relatively autonomously, interact with the various aspects of the "world" in order to create a story, et. al.  Few authors appear to be completist/simulationists of the type that Tolkien was (with respect to languages) and yet a typical RPG campaign design makes Tolkien's level of detail the norm rather than exception.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> There are other reasons for which I probably would have very mixed feelings about playing pure 4e or any pure version of D&D, mostly the contiued existence of the Cleric and overemphasis on "divine" stuff.




In general, me too.  While my wish list of stuff would probably be different from yours, I would hope for both of your sakes that 4E is more modular than 3E so that both of us can pick and choose what we want.  



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> My point is that I doubt that everything your saying is going to be true, and I dont see how you can come to that conclusion either based on what little we know.




I've answered this numerous times - even if you don't agree that's not the same thing is that you "don't see" so I'll say it again so that you can say "I see why you're saying it but I disagree" and that is this:  my extrapolations IMO are a very logical, and rather conservative assessment of what Wyatt's rather clear design goals were that were stated in the quote.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Even if what your saying about "per encounter" ends up being so, it does not mean as you seem to think, that the same philosophy will be applied to everything, or that there wont be factors to keep the style of play you prefer fully viable.




AFAICT that's like saying that the authors believe in the principle of good grammar but will only use it for Chapter 1 of the book.  Assuming we understand each other I guess we'll just have to disagree on this as it is dependant on a basic understanding of human nature.


----------



## Celebrim

Merlion said:
			
		

> Ok, let me be totally specific here.
> 
> To me, and most people I am familiar with, most of the time, contributing to combat as a wizard involves the use of magic to damage foes, incapacitate foes, kill foes, enhance allies, alter or control the battlefield etc etc and similar things.




And wizards in 3rd edition don't do that now?  



> During combat, when your allies are already being attacked, making knowledge checks isnt likely to be terribly useful...




In your game maybe.



> ...and shooting off a crossbow or waving a dagger around isnt very "wizardy".




Perhaps.  But even in 3rd edition these things only happen for about 4 levels or so, then the wizard ends up with a wand of magic missiles, a bag full of scrolls, and enough spells per day make a bang in most every combat (and certainly the big ones).  And that is plenty wizardly.  If a wizard is forced to occasionally hit something with his staff, I'm not sure how that's a problem.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm sympathetic to changes that would improve the experience of play through the first four levels or so, and increase balance say above 13th level (current sweet spot is IMO about 4th-12th).  However, such sympathy doesn't necessarily endear me to these particular changes which for the most part strike me as unnecessary to achieve what you say you want out of the system.

Doug McCrae I think has a much more serious complaint about the system than, 'My wizard isn't during the first couple of levels necessarily always wizardly', and while your problem is easily addressed in the existing system, his isn't.  

Of course, addressing his problem means making Wizards much less powerful, which if I had to guess is going to force wizards by design to do less in the way of battlefield alteration, ally enhancing, and so forth.


----------



## Raven Crowking

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Because I typed "certain" before adding "per-encounter" and forgot to edit it out.





OK, then.  Here's the problem as I see/understand it:

(1)  Each battle either does or does not use up per-day resources.  I will consider PC death as a per-day resource.

(1a)  If a battle does not use up per-day resources, nothing is lost in engaging in that battle.  This means:

(1ai)  The PCs can engage in an effectively endless number of these battles.

(1aii)  The only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff.

(1b)  If a battle doe use up per-day resources, the PCs will be at less than full capacity.  This means:

(1bi)  These battles are automatically much more important than the other battles.

(1bii)  The PCs can only engage in a limited number of these battles per day.

(1biii)  This impact of these battles is to make the PCs less able to deal with future events.

To my mind, these things together lead to several conclusions:

1.  In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle.  It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario.  We have been told for a very long time, "if it doesn't impact the game, it's better to handwave it."

1a.  The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-encounter resources don't impact the game, and hence are not significant.

1b.  The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-day resources impact the game, and hence are significant.

1c.  We are told that the problem that this design is meant to counter is resting as soon as significant (in the metagame sense) resources are depleted.

1ci.  Having greater insignificant (in the metagame sense) resources means that you can adventure longer, but also that said adventuring is not meaningful (again, in the metagame sense).

1cii.  If it is true that PCs will rest as soon as significant resources are depleted, then within the new framework, PCs will rest as soon as per-day resources are depleted.

1ciii.  Point 1cii is even more true if some (or all) per-encounter resources are tied into having per-day resources untapped.

2.  In order to make a battle significant, all (or the vast majority of) non-handwaved battles should have a reasonable chance of expending per-day resources.

2a.  This means that resting may occur after the first encounter, which is exactly the problem the system is intended to eliminate.

2b.  Assuming fewer per-day resources than 3e, this also means that there is a smaller range of encounters that can both impact those resources and be survivable, hence narrowing the opportunity for significant action within the system.

From what I have seen posted so far, it appears that the 4e designers expect that:

(1)  Most encounters will not use up any significant (in the metagame sense) resources.

(2)  Players will be excited about these encounters; i.e., they will find them "fun".

(3)  This will result in a longer, and more fulfilling adventuring "day".

I believe that the designers are correct in terms of _initial_ play (first 3-6 months), but the more players become aware of the meaninglessness (in a metagame sense) of the majority of encounters, the less excited they will be by those encounters, the less fun they will have, and the more they will want to get on to the "real" encounters that have a chance to significantly (in a metagame sense) impact the game.

Which puts us right back to where we began.

Crowking's Maxim 1:  _A stronger element of resource attrition leads both to a greater range of choice, and a greater range of significance to encounters, than a weaker element of resource attrition._

Crowking's Maxim 2:  _No element of resource attrition is meaningful unless there exists some cost/benefit analysis related to the choice between renewing the resource or attempting to continue without renewing the resource._

(A)  If a 10-minute rest is required to reset abilities (instead of per-encounter), and wandering monsters are encouraged, so-called "per encounter" resources gain a level of cost/benefit analysis that makes them more interesting.

(B)  If wandering monsters are encouraged, and the means to avoid wandering monsters becomes more difficult to use effectively (Rope Trick, Teleportation in 3e), then "per day" abilities gain a higher level of cost/benefit analysis.

I would hazard to say that, regardless of what 4e determines to be what type of resource, applying (A) and (B) would resolve the 9-9:15 (or 9-9:30) problem completely.  In fact, nerfing the "hiding" spells while encouraging wandering monsters would have done the trick in 3.X without requiring any further revision to address that problem.

IMHO, of course.

YMMV.

YDMB.


RC


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> .Yes "A is exactly like B. A is nothing like B". I get into these debates all of the time on the internet, and I have yet to figure out how to interject subtlety into this. The way magic works in novels is vague to a degree that IME would not be useful in an RPG. The preceeding statement falls into neither category of A being completely like B, or being completely unlike B, but if those are the only two statement patterns that I can choose from I'm afraid I just cannot make my point.






  Your still not getting it. 

I want the magic in an RPG to FEEL like how magic is depicted in fiction, in a very broad and general sense. For me, Vancian magic doesnt really do this at all. The proposed changes in 4e have to me a FEEL and a structure that is much more like how I am used to magic being depicted overall.





> AFAICT





What exactly does that stand for?





> mention* was made of that fact in Wyatt's statement AFAICT. *For good reason* Because this aspect of Vancian magic was not his problem. And this aspect of Vancian magic is not addressed by going to a "per-encounter" resource model. Spell points are typically a per-day resource, and you have the same potential "9:00-9:15" problem with them as you do with Vancian, even though AFAICT they address the problem you described above. A "Sorcerer" type character class design already solves your problem, why is the "per-encounter" design important in this?





I've read the Wyatt thing several times, and I honestly dont fully understand exactly what he's getting at, or exactly what your getting from it. And even less do i get its relevence to the parts of the issue that I myself am mainly discussing. 





> my extrapolations IMO are a very logical, and rather conservative assessment of what Wyatt's rather clear design goals were that were stated in the quote





But even if thats true, which I'm not sure about, theres a lot more too it, and your deciding how everything is going to be based on the tiny amounts of information we have. 




> AFAICT that's like saying that the authors believe in the principle of good grammar but will only use it for Chapter 1 of the book. Assuming we understand each other I guess we'll just have to disagree on this as it is dependant on a basic understanding of human nature.





DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE GAME ARE DIFFERENT. Therefore, why would they apply exactly the same philosophy and methods to every aspect of the game?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> Gandalf isnt a wizard, and is probably the worst possible example for this situation. The limitations on Gandalf's use of his powers have nothing to do with resources. They were philosophical in nature.





Middle Earth wizards are not D&D wizards, but Gandalf was a wizard.

And, in fact, his use of power did have to do with his resources, as is explicit in both The Hobbit (when he was treed by the goblins and wolves) and in Moria (where he tried to hold the door against the balrog and he states that it nearly depleted his resources).  

RC


----------



## FickleGM

> What exactly does that stand for?



AFAICT = As Far As I Can Tell


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Middle Earth wizards are not D&D wizards, but Gandalf was a wizard.
> RC





Gandalf was an Angel, sent by the higher powers to encourage people to stand up to Sauron, and to a very limited degree, to aid them in doing so. 





> And, in fact, his use of power did have to do with his resources, as is explicit in both The Hobbit (when he was treed by the goblins and wolves) and in Moria (where he tried to hold the door against the balrog and he states that it nearly depleted his resources).





But the fact that he rarely "casts spells" and does more physical fighting than magical has more to do with the philosophic restrictions, and the fact that his using supernatural means can attract unwanted attention.


----------



## Merlion

Celebrim said:
			
		

> And wizards in 3rd edition don't do that now?





Yep, they do. For a while. And usually, especially at lower levels, they become unable to do this well before the other classes especially the melees become unable to practice their shtick. 





> In your game maybe.





Yep, true. but also in those of everyone else I know of. You see monsters, you make a knowledge check to inform your combat decisions. A knowledge check isnt going to stop an attack, restore your ally, or harm your enemy in and of itself, at that moment.





> 'My wizard isn't during the first couple of levels necessarily always wizardly', and while your problem is easily addressed in the existing system, his isn't.





First off, thats only part of my overall problem, and nextly how exactly is it easily addressed in the system?





> Perhaps. But even in 3rd edition these things only happen for about 4 levels or so, then the wizard ends up with a wand of magic missiles, a bag full of scrolls, and enough spells per day make a bang in most every combat (and certainly the big ones). And that is plenty wizardly. If a wizard is forced to occasionally hit something with his staff, I'm not sure how that's a problem.





But we know that 4e is reducing magic items. And many already reduce magic items in their existing games. And more importantly, many consider it bad design for magic items to be needed to fill gaps in character abilities.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> Gandalf was an Angel, sent by the higher powers to encourage people to stand up to Sauron, and to a very limited degree, to aid them in doing so.




Gandalf was a wizard; in Middle Earth the five wizards were incarnated spirits sent from Valinor.  This is not the same as a D&D wizard; but he was still a wizard.  In Middle Earth, the term "wizard" means what Gandalf was.

It is true that there are times when we are told explicitly that Gandalf doesn't act for philosophic reasons.  It is also true that there are times that we are told that Gandalf doesn't act (or act more powerfully) because he doesn't have the ability to do so.

Both of which are neither here nor there, because this isn't a thread about Middle Earth.  If you, however, open such a thread, invite me in, because, overall, I enjoy discussing it.    

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> But we know that 4e is reducing magic items. And many already reduce magic items in their existing games. And more importantly, many consider it bad design for magic items to be needed to fill gaps in character abilities.





Yep.  That would be me.  

I understand your desire for a more "novel-like" feel to the magic system (or a more folkloric feel, if you're like me!), but I don't share your belief that what we're hearing described in the 4e blogs is it.  To me, it is even farther away than the current system.  

I certainly accept that this is a matter of opinion, though.  


RC


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Gandalf was a wizard; in Middle Earth the five wizards were incarnated spirits sent from Valinor.  This is not the same as a D&D wizard; but he was still a wizard.  In Middle Earth, the term "wizard" means what Gandalf was.





  Humanity called them "wizards" only because they didnt know what they were. They looked and acted the part, but conceptually and in the sense of their origins they dont really fit any common definition of Wizard. they were inherently purely spiritual/magical beings incarnated in physical humanoid forms, not humanoid beings who learned and/or were born with a gift for magic.


I'm just saying in discussion of Wizards Gandalf isnt a particularly great example.


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yep.  That would be me.
> 
> I understand your desire for a more "novel-like" feel to the magic system (or a more folkloric feel, if you're like me!), but I don't share your belief that what we're hearing described in the 4e blogs is it.  To me, it is even farther away than the current system.
> 
> I certainly accept that this is a matter of opinion, though.
> 
> 
> RC





Well, i basically just feel like almost any aproach is more like literature/folklore than the Vancian one. 

I dont think the 4e system will fit some concepts very well either, certainly. Each "magical action" will still be a set mechanical package...there will be no making up effects on the fly, or even altering existing spells on the fly. Mostly as I've said it'll do away with the "I know how to do this particular magic, but as soon as I do I cant use it anymore unless I prepare multiple copies" issue. Wizards will have some abilities that they can always or nearly always use. It will be easier, i think, to mentally tweak into a more folkloric mold.

  Chances are I will still like the Arcana Evolved system better. I just dont feel that some of the specific fears expressed in this thread are necessarily justified or at least as assured as some seem to think. I think we are missing a lot of pieces.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> I'm just saying in discussion of Wizards Gandalf isnt a particularly great example.




Change that to "D&D Wizards" and we might agree.....

......Though, of course, Merlin was supposed to be the son of a demon, so I guess that means we couldn't use him as an example either......



Anyway, I don't want to bog this thread down with Tolkein (though would be happy to discuss more with you, ravencrowking at hotmail dot com).

If nothing else, 4e is really changing the way I think about game design, both in theory and in practice.  The more of this back-and-forth I read, the more amazed I am at Gygax's work, and how often he seemed to intuit both the problems and potential solutions (though not only solutions!) to those problems.  Games may well have evolved past OD&D, but it seems that problems we face today are the result of that evolution, and it amazes me how much we seem to be reaching back to the past to find the solutions.......


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Change that to "D&D Wizards" and we might agree.....
> 
> ......Though, of course, Merlin was supposed to be the son of a demon, so I guess that means we couldn't use him as an example either......
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I don't want to bog this thread down with Tolkein (though would be happy to discuss more with you, ravencrowking at hotmail dot com).
> 
> If nothing else, 4e is really changing the way I think about game design, both in theory and in practice.  The more of this back-and-forth I read, the more amazed I am at Gygax's work, and how often he seemed to intuit both the problems and potential solutions (though not only solutions!) to those problems.  Games may well have evolved past OD&D, but it seems that problems we face today are the result of that evolution, and it amazes me how much we seem to be reaching back to the past to find the solutions.......







Well, the only real issue with Merlin as an example would be narrowing it down to which "Merlin."   


  For me, its basically this. What I see of the changes so far, which isnt much, I tend to like personally, and think are sound from a design and balance perspective. I understand all of your fears, and share some of them a little, but I think that there will be factors in place to avoid those pittfalls, we just havent been shown them yet.


----------



## Imaro

You know, after getting home from work and reading through most of the posts since I left I have to reiterate what I said in another post(that was quickly drowned out by other 4e posts)  check out Monte Cook's world of Darkness game for a magic system that solves the whole, not enough problem and is adaptable enough to have spell lists and free-form magic.

In the game mages have what are called components of which they get a certain amount each level.  These components replenish over time and are used as the building blocks for spells.  For exampole you purchase area, range, duration and damage for an attack spell.  The cost generates your DC with a spellcraft check and determines the amount of fatigue you suffer from the spell(a stacking penalty applied to your spellcraft check until you rest.).

Now a weaker spell generates little or even no fatigue, so you could do the same damage a fighter of the same level does without suffering any fatigue, but when you go for nova type spells your risk and fatigue increase significantly, limiting how many of these types of spells you can cast over extended periods of time as well as your chance of failure.

"spells" or rotes as they are called in the game are specififc magical effects that are so common and practiced so much that they have become easier to cast(bonus to spellcraft check and less fatigue), as long as you cast them as is.  If you alter them then they become free form magic as above.

Finally all mages can choose a type like Warlock(damage magic and power magic)...Necromancer(magic dealing with the dead and undead) etc.  this type makes certain types of spells easier for you to cast if they fall under your artchetype.


----------



## wgreen

Imaro said:
			
		

> You know, after getting home from work and reading through most of the posts since I left I have to reiterate what I said in another post(that was quickly drowned out by other 4e posts)  check out Monte Cook's world of Darkness game for a magic system that solves the whole, not enough problem and is adaptable enough to have spell lists and free-form magic.
> 
> In the game mages have what are called components of which they get a certain amount each level.  These components replenish over time and are used as the building blocks for spells.  For exampole you purchase area, range, duration and damage for an attack spell.  The cost generates your DC with a spellcraft check and determines the amount of fatigue you suffer from the spell(a stacking penalty applied to your spellcraft check until you rest.).



Huh.  Sounds suspiciously like Donjon!  

Carry on.

-Will


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 1.  In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle.  It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario.  We have been told for a very long time, "if it doesn't impact the game, it's better to handwave it."




This assumes that the only reason to have a battle is to consume resources. But there's another, much simpler reason to have battles - because they're fun. And I don't think most gaming groups judge how much fun a battle was by how many per-day resources it consumed. I've been gaming for a long time now, and I've never played in a group that judged how much fun a battle was in that way.


----------



## Imaro

Grog said:
			
		

> This assumes that the only reason to have a battle is to consume resources. But there's another, much simpler reason to have battles - because they're fun. And I don't think most gaming groups judge how much fun a battle was by how many per-day resources it consumed. I've been gaming for a long time now, and I've never played in a group that judged how much fun a battle was in that way.




I have, in general, seen players more psyched about a battle that was hard and took everything they had to win(especially when they aren't at full power), than a gimme encounter even though they looked cooler in the gimme encounter.  There was just more tension, and excitement in the first type, especially if it's for something important. YMMV of course.


----------



## Merlion

Imaro said:
			
		

> I have, in general, seen players more psyched about a battle that was hard and took everything they had to win(especially when they aren't at full power), than a gimme encounter even though they looked cooler in the gimme encounter.  There was just more tension, and excitement in the first type, especially if it's for something important. YMMV of course.





Well, it depends on circumstances.


And also lets remember there are more degrees than life or death or "gimme". Theres a wide range in between.


----------



## Celebrim

Merlion said:
			
		

> First off, thats only part of my overall problem, and nextly how exactly is it easily addressed in the system?




By an evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary one.  Right now the problem is that all of a wizards magical abilities are linked to 'per day'.  But, the current d20 system supports 'at will' powers just fine.  Since you are worried about wizards running out of wizardly things to do in combat, simply give them a built in 'wand' which never runs out of charges.  No 'per encounter' powers are then needed.  

For example, using terms that should be familiar from the current rules set:
1st-5th level: Can use 'ray of frost' (1d3 elemental damage) as an attack action.
6th-10th level: As above, plus can fire a 'magic missile' (1d4+1 force damage) as an attack action.
11th-15th level: As above, plus can fire a scorching ray (4d6 elemental damage) as an attack action.
16-20th level: As above, plus can use a lightning bolt (5d6 elemental damage, reflex for half) as an attack action.

There, I've fixed the problem.  A full write up would probably take a page or two.  A slightly more flexible system might allow you to substitute out certain non-blaster type spells, and basically any minor variation on the warlock class features would work here.

No need for 'per encounter', major revisions of the vancian system, or an approach that would render translation from the prior editions versions of a 'Wizard' to 4e difficult.

The biggest complaint I think you'd see with something like the above is that except at 1st 2nd, or 3rd level, the fall back spell option I described would be used very rarely in most peoples games.  At latter levels, you'd almost always have better options.  So, simple as it is, its a lot of complexity in the class description for the simple goal that it achieves.



> And many already reduce magic items in their existing games.




Even hard core 'grim and gritty' types like myself who look at magic shops as if they were steaming dog turds tend to classify limited use magic items like potions, scrolls, and wands quite differently than magic items in general.  After reading this discussion, I think you can probably guess why.



> And more importantly, many consider it bad design for magic items to be needed to fill gaps in character abilities.




Even wizards?  This is going to sound snarky, but if a wizard doesn't have magic potions, scrolls, wands, or staffs and assorted wizardly trappings, then he's doesn't strike me as being very 'wizardly'.  The ability to make and use these items is very wizardly indeed, and quite rightly has _always_ been considered part of a wizards character abilities.

Besides which, we aren't talking about gaps in the character abilities.  We are talking about allowing the wizard to act wizardly all the time.  That's the goal right?  You don't think a wizard needs his magic wand to be wizardly far more than a fighter needs a magic sword?


----------



## Grog

Imaro said:
			
		

> I have, in general, seen players more psyched about a battle that was hard and took everything they had to win(especially when they aren't at full power), than a gimme encounter even though they looked cooler in the gimme encounter.  There was just more tension, and excitement in the first type, especially if it's for something important. YMMV of course.




Oh, I agree that difficult encounters tend to be more fun than easy ones (though that definitely depends on _why_ an encounter is difficult - my experiences as a DM have told me that there's often a fine line between "difficult" and "frustrating"). I'm just saying that, in all my years of gaming, I've never seen an exchange like this one:

DM: So, how was that fight? Was it fun for you guys?
Player: Wait, let me check my character sheet to see how many spells I cast.... Yeah, it was fun.

And also, I see no reason that it won't be entirely possible for 4E PCs to have a fun encounter where they expend only a little or even none of their per-day resources.


----------



## Merlion

Celebrim said:
			
		

> By an evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary one.  Right now the problem is that all of a wizards magical abilities are linked to 'per day'.  But, the current d20 system supports 'at will' powers just fine.  Since you are worried about wizards running out of wizardly things to do in combat, simply give them a built in 'wand' which never runs out of charges.  No 'per encounter' powers are then needed.
> 
> For example, using terms that should be familiar from the current rules set:
> 1st-5th level: Can use 'ray of frost' (1d3 elemental damage) as an attack action.
> 6th-10th level: As above, plus can fire a 'magic missile' (1d4+1 force damage) as an attack action.
> 11th-15th level: As above, plus can fire a scorching ray (4d6 elemental damage) as an attack action.
> 16-20th level: As above, plus can use a lightning bolt (5d6 elemental damage, reflex for half) as an attack action.
> 
> There, I've fixed the problem.  A full write up would probably take a page or two.  A slightly more flexible system might allow you to substitute out certain non-blaster type spells, and basically any minor variation on the warlock class features would work here.
> 
> No need for 'per encounter', major revisions of the vancian system, or an approach that would render translation from the prior editions versions of a 'Wizard' to 4e difficult.
> 
> The biggest complaint I think you'd see with something like the above is that except at 1st 2nd, or 3rd level, the fall back spell option I described would be used very rarely in most peoples games.  At latter levels, you'd almost always have better options.  So, simple as it is, its a lot of complexity in the class description for the simple goal that it achieves.






Yep, your right that that would be another possible solution to that particular problem. A pretty nice one too, that I wouldnt object to.

So then your only issue is specifically with the addition of per encounter abilities? You have no problem with a wizard with the usual Vancian spells plus at-will powers...so why are having per encounter ones as well specifically an issue?




> Besides which, we aren't talking about gaps in the character abilities. We are talking about allowing the wizard to act wizardly all the time. That's the goal right? You don't think a wizard needs his magic wand to be wizardly far more than a fighter needs a magic sword?





That depends on the nature of the wand. One that increases his inherent abilities? Sure. One thats a spell storage stick? Not so much, for me.


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 1.  In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle.  It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario.




Oh, and one other thing. Even looking at it solely from the standpoint of how many resources are expended, a hypothetical 4E fight that only uses per-encounter resources isn't comparable to a "4 goblins against a 10th level fighter" scenario, because that scenario uses _no resources at all_. Which isn't the same thing as a fight in which per-encounter resources are used.


----------



## Celebrim

Merlion said:
			
		

> So then your only issue is specifically with the addition of per encounter abilities?




Isn't that pretty much what this thread is all about?  



> You have no problem with a wizard with the usual Vancian spells plus at-will powers...so why are having per encounter ones as well specifically an issue?




Have you been reading the thread???  

And its not just the wizard.  All the classes are apparantly getting a per encounter make over.



> That depends on the nature of the wand. One that increases his inherent abilities? Sure. One thats a spell storage stick? Not so much, for me.




I'm not so sure what the difference is.  It lets you do more magic one way or the other. Other systems out there treat wands as a mana batteries, which in a mana point system is basically a spell storage stick.

Besides, do you make the same objection to potions?  Scrolls?


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> I'm just saying that, in all my years of gaming, I've never seen an exchange like this one:
> 
> DM: So, how was that fight? Was it fun for you guys?
> Player: Wait, let me check my character sheet to see how many spells I cast.... Yeah, it was fun.




But in most/all descriptions of why people consider a combat encounter to be challenging/interesting there is a strong implication of a use of daily resources.  Just recently in this very thread someone was in the process of describing various types of difficult encounters and all of them wound up having some aspect of daily resource usage built into them.  I think an awareness of daily resources is very much a part of players sense of danger/difficulty, even if they're not explicitly aware of it.  In fact, I think the fact that they're not explicitly aware of it explains RC's assertion that a change like this might be ok for the first 3 to 6 months, the time it takes for a player's intuition to catch up with the changes in the rules.


----------



## gizmo33

Celebrim said:
			
		

> This is going to sound snarky, but if a wizard doesn't have magic potions, scrolls, wands, or staffs and assorted wizardly trappings, then he's doesn't strike me as being very 'wizardly'.  The ability to make and use these items is very wizardly indeed, and quite rightly has _always_ been considered part of a wizards character abilities.




I guess it's risky to discuss the huge subject of folklore and fiction in the span of limited time, but I basically agree with what you're saying here.  A fighter-type having access to a huge variety of magic items is a DnD-ism.  The idea that a wizard would have a variety of magical accoutrements is much more common.  In fact, the last Conan story I read (cited on another thread, seems to be useful for a variety of examples) has a wizard whose *entire* combat repetoire was a set of quasi-alchemical bombs, powders, and poisons.

I like the idea that 4E is going to ratchet down the magic items overall, but I hope they give some thought to how the wizard fits into this.


----------



## Merlion

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Isn't that pretty much what this thread is all about?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been reading the thread???






Yea, but a lot of the back and forth and jargon and number flinging has ceased to make much sense to me. I tend to think of things in a more basic manner. I either could never tell, or have forgotten through all the other stuff, what your specific objection to per encounter is. I realize you dont think its "necessary" to fix some or all of the problems people have mentioned but thats not the same thing.




> I'm not so sure what the difference is.





Well one difference is, a wand that say adds to caster level makes a wizard better at what he doesnt, but isnt merely an item to take over for when his personal resources run out. Thats the one that pops right into my mind this second, there are probably others.





> Besides, do you make the same objection to potions? Scrolls?





I think single use magic items in general are overused, although I probably like potions best.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> But in most/all descriptions of why people consider a combat encounter to be challenging/interesting there is a strong implication of a use of daily resources.




First, "challenging" and "fun" are not necessarily synonymous. I've had easy fights that were great fun, and I've had difficult fights that were extremely frustrating. I agree that _in general_ difficult fights tend to be more fun, but that's not true 100% of the time.

And second, the reason that, in all previous editions of D&D, challenging fights demanded the use of daily resources on the part of the players is because, in all previous editions of D&D, *daily resources were the only resources the players had.* But in 4E, that will no longer be the case. Players will have per-encounter resources in addition to daily resources. And I see no reason that a fight can't be both challenging and fun, even if the players end up mostly just using their per-encounter resources to fight it.

Having multiple types of resources opens up more options, both to the players, and the DM. This is a good thing IMO.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> But in most/all descriptions of why people consider a combat encounter to be challenging/interesting there is a strong implication of a use of daily resources.  Just recently in this very thread someone was in the process of describing various types of difficult encounters and all of them wound up having some aspect of daily resource usage built into them.  I think an awareness of daily resources is very much a part of players sense of danger/difficulty, even if they're not explicitly aware of it.  In fact, I think the fact that they're not explicitly aware of it explains RC's assertion that a change like this might be ok for the first 3 to 6 months, the time it takes for a player's intuition to catch up with the changes in the rules.






I think *resources* are. I dont think daily, hourly, per encounter, per full moon etc makes much difference to most.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I guess it's risky to discuss the huge subject of folklore and fiction in the span of limited time, but I basically agree with what you're saying here.  A fighter-type having access to a huge variety of magic items is a DnD-ism.  The idea that a wizard would have a variety of magical accoutrements is much more common.  In fact, the last Conan story I read (cited on another thread, seems to be useful for a variety of examples) has a wizard whose *entire* combat repetoire was a set of quasi-alchemical bombs, powders, and poisons.
> 
> I like the idea that 4E is going to ratchet down the magic items overall, but I hope they give some thought to how the wizard fits into this.





  I think a character whose practice of magic consists entirely of the use of magical objects would almost have to be a seperate class.

  I think there should be more permanent items for spellcasters that dont necessarily cast spells, but that produce unique magical effects or make the spellcaster better. Add to cast level, or damage, or save DCs(or equivalent), or that give access to new spells or abilities etc.

  items for casters have always seemingly been either stat boost/defensive items, or "spell storage" items for the most part.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> And also lets remember there are more degrees than life or death or "gimme". Theres a wide range in between.




Really?  In a world where I can click my fingers and restore my health, capabilities, and resources to full power once a minute has passed?  In such a world, IMO, I actually find there is not much of a range between life or death and "gimme".  Unless encounter poses a measurable chance of killing my character, in the 4E paradigm the only real effect it has (outside of the story significance) is to make my dice arm get tired and take up some time (and in a 3E 6-second AoO combat model, that's often a lot of time).

Some of this could be gaming style.  I've seen several people (or maybe one person several times) assert that they know players that enjoy push-over encounters because it makes their PCs seem like heroes.  Even for those players though, there's a limit to that I would think, and when that limit is exhausted you're still stuck with the same rule system.

This IMO has nothing to do with a Vancian magic system.  This has to do with any system where you do the minute-long finger clicking to get your stuff back.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Really?  In a world where I can click my fingers and restore my health, capabilities, and resources to full power once a minute has passed?  In such a world, IMO, I actually find there is not much of a range between life or death and "gimme".  Unless encounter poses a measurable chance of killing my character, in the 4E paradigm the only real effect it has (outside of the story significance) is to make my dice arm get tired and take up some time (and in a 3E 6-second AoO combat model, that's often a lot of time).
> .





  Ok, several problems here. First, theres the obvious. Even when your at full resources, OVERCOMING the encounter might be very easy, slight easy, difficult, very difficult, impossible (that is everyone dies, or must retreat to avoid death) and various other degrees of difficulty. 

  next, and you've been told this repeatedly but still dont seem to get it PER ENCOUNTER ABILITIES ARE NOT ALL OR EVEN MOST OF A CHARACTERS ABILITIES so where you get this snap fingers one minute back to 100% thing I dont know


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> _in general_ difficult fights tend to be more fun, but that's not true 100% of the time.




Ok, that seems reasonable to me.  But if it's true the *majority* of the time then why not design a rule system to recognize that?  Seems to me that the best strategy is to design a game where those things that you do most often are the most fun.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> in all previous editions of D&D, *daily resources were the only resources the players had.*




I think this is objectively not true.  It's also at the core of some of my reasoning on this issue so IMO it's important to understand why this is not true.  Players have at-will and even encounter level resources in 3E, they just don't think much of them.  A fighter can swing a sword whenever he feels like it, and this is fundementally no different from a wizard being able to use a touch spell at will.  (I mean 'no different' in terms of the issues discussed by this thread, obviously it matters when you compare using a sword to using Shocking Grasp when fighthing a lightning elemental).

And the fact that they don't currently think much of them shoud be *carefully* considered before you turn everything into an "encounter-level" resource or expect the "encounter-level" resource design to solve the stated problem.  For reasons that Celebrim outlined during his discussion of "operational" aspects of DnD and resource management, it's an open question IMO whether or not at-will and encounter-level resources can really be considered resources at all.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think this is objectively not true.  It's also at the core of some of my reasoning on this issue so IMO it's important to understand why this is not true.  Players have at-will and even encounter level resources in 3E, they just don't think much of them.  A fighter can swing a sword whenever he feels like it, and this is fundementally no different from a wizard being able to use a touch spell at will.  (I mean 'no different' in terms of the issues discussed by this thread, obviously it matters when you compare using a sword to using Shocking Grasp when fighthing a lightning elemental).
> .





  But these arent really resources. Not to players and not from a design perspective. The ability to walk isnt a resource. The ability to speak isnt a resource. Not in terms of how people generally think about it. 


  And I think a fighter being able to swing a sword for 1d8 at will and a wizard being able to cast a touch spell for 1d6/level, or even just 1d6 plus some other effect are not the same, even allowing for the fact that the fighters 1d8 gets some accesories over time eventually as well. 

  Other than the ability to do basic things like walk or make a basic attack, pretty much everything that characters have is either all the time (like a constant magic item) or per day. Some things are even less...the charges of a wand for example arent per day, they are a set limit.

  Spells are per day. The class abilities of all the standard PH races I know of are either per day, or continious. 

  Give me some examples of "at will or per encounter" resources other than basic physical functions such as being able to make a melee attack.


----------



## wgreen

Y'know, it occurs to me that the reason why many combats feel exciting is not that per-day resources are spent, but that _limited_ resources are spent.  Thing is, per-encounter resources are still limited!  There will be those "Oh, !@#$, I'm out of per-encounter abilities, and this bastard _still_ hasn't dropped...!" moments, which are _not_ necessarily life-or-death moments.  Just..._uncertain_ moments.

-Will


----------



## Merlion

wgreen said:
			
		

> Y'know, it occurs to me that the reason why many combats feel exciting is not that per-day resources are spent, but that _limited_ resources are spent.  Thing is, per-encounter resources are still limited!  There will be those "Oh, !@#$, I'm out of per-encounter abilities, and this bastard _still_ hasn't dropped...!" moments, which are _not_ necessarily life-or-death moments.  Just..._uncertain_ moments.
> 
> -Will





Prexactly! and even Excisely!


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

I disagree [with gizmo, per usual] - the fighter's only real resource is his hitpoints.  These are certainly a per-day resource (and, at high levels, could actually be a per-several-days resource).

These are, almost always, tied to the cleric's ability to heal, which is another per-day resource.

No, I agree with Grog - the only significant resources* which required any management whatsoever throughout the history of D&D were per-day.  At-will abilities don't consume any resource management at all.

* - Okay, you could have a 1 / hour magic item.


----------



## William Ronald

wgreen said:
			
		

> Y'know, it occurs to me that the reason why many combats feel exciting is not that per-day resources are spent, but that _limited_ resources are spent.  Thing is, per-encounter resources are still limited!  There will be those "Oh, !@#$, I'm out of per-encounter abilities, and this bastard _still_ hasn't dropped...!" moments, which are _not_ necessarily life-or-death moments.  Just..._uncertain_ moments.
> 
> -Will





That does contribute to a sense of excitement, of the characters having a hard won victory against a foe.  I think that it is important for victories to have meaning to the players in a group, so their characters can sweat a bit at the major combats.  (Part of the fun of a game is a sense of accomplishment.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

It might be also interesting to note that in describing a map/adventure Mearls built for a D&D 4 scenario, he said he had placed a very difficult encounter so that the players could theoretically get there early in the adventure, and might need to retreat then. This might indicate that 
1) either the players will get wary that, if this was the first, we stand no chance for the rest, or
2) there are still some significant resources that can be lost and not that easily retained.

Which certainly begs the question: How much is the focus on "per encounter "abilities really? What kind of resources are so significant that we can lose them? Can this defeat the supposed purpose of the per encounter abilities? 

Maybe we are still thinking to much in D&D 3.x terms, here, though.
Maybe there are encounters that are difficult when using just the per encounter effects. But some abilities are so difficult that everyone loses more than just that, and they really lose some permanent resources.

As an example: Let's say a Wizard prepares Fireball. As long as it it prepared, he can shoot tiny balls of fire (touch attacks, dealing damage comparable to the damage the fighter will inflict.). Once per encounter, he can throw a larger fireball (10 ft diameter, more damage), approximately as powerful as the Fighters once per encounter Whirlwind Strike ability (totally made up). And than he can cast the "real deal", full range, area and damage. But than, the Vancian part kicks in, he loses the spells, and he has to go along without his tiny fireballs. 

Can this totally avoid the "going nova effect" of a mage? I don't see that, but it can lessen the effect. It certainly doesn't require you to hold totally back. And if the "Full" Fireball isn't vastly more powerful than the once per encounter one, very specific circumstances will actually make it really useful to use the full spell. 

In 3.x terms, the mechanic is similar to the Reserve feats, but the game effect of the "reserve" ability is stronger. It's more like holding back your 6th level spell in exchange for using your 5th level spells once in each encounter and your 4th level spells or lower at will. But if you put out your 6th level spell, than you also lost your 5th and 4th level ones..
That might also be a good reason to have more than 9 spell levels, because you need more gradual differences between the "full" effect and the lower level effect.

But well, that's totally guessing and I don't have a clue if it is what we will get to see. But I am eager to find out. Maybe I will even try to come up to house rule something like this in my D&D game. But wait,I am running Iron Heroes...


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Ok, that seems reasonable to me.  But if it's true the *majority* of the time then why not design a rule system to recognize that?  Seems to me that the best strategy is to design a game where those things that you do most often are the most fun.




I think most rule systems out there do recognize that. I just don't like seeing "difficult" and "fun" used interchangeably. Sometimes they're the same, sometimes not.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think this is objectively not true.  It's also at the core of some of my reasoning on this issue so IMO it's important to understand why this is not true.  Players have at-will and even encounter level resources in 3E, they just don't think much of them.  A fighter can swing a sword whenever he feels like it, and this is fundementally no different from a wizard being able to use a touch spell at will.  (I mean 'no different' in terms of the issues discussed by this thread, obviously it matters when you compare using a sword to using Shocking Grasp when fighthing a lightning elemental).




Can you give me an example of an encounter-level resource in the core 3.X rules? I know that Bo9S has them, but I'm having trouble thinking of any in the core rules.

And I wouldn't call the fighter's ability to swing his sword a "resource" at all. He can do it every round, as often as he wants to, all day long. In the context of these discussions, "resources" usually mean things that can be expended. And encounter-level resources can be expended just as easily as per-day resources can, so they have to be tracked by the players just as per-day resources do (at least for the duration of the encounter).  The presence of these per-encounter resources represents a fundamental difference from previous editions of D&D.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> and various other degrees of difficulty.




I have trouble with the use of the word "difficulty" in this context.  
Situation One:  roll a 1 on a d20 or your imaginary character dies
Situation Two:  roll a 1 on a d4 or your imaginary character dies

Is one situation really more "difficult" than the other?  Of course no combat situation is this simple, and perhaps you're thinking that tactical considerations mean the players have to think, like chess, and that's tough.

But I find it contrived and uncomfortable to think that I'm going to have to design each combat encounter to feature rope bridges over pits of fire and random explosions and other battlefield and tactical nuisances, and use them to a level that such tactical thinking would be a significant part of the outcome of the battle.  For the most part IME with DnD the encounter is won or lost on the basic strengths of the opponents.  



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> next, and you've been told this repeatedly but still dont seem to get it PER ENCOUNTER ABILITIES ARE NOT ALL OR EVEN MOST OF A CHARACTERS ABILITIES so where you get this snap fingers one minute back to 100% thing I dont know




We've all probably told each other things that the other hasn't gotten.  I don't know what to say other than deal with it.  I'm doing the best I can to make sense out of what your saying.

Speaking of saying things repeatedly, I've already told you repeatedly where I get this idea, but I'll say it AGAIN:  It's a logical conclusion drawn from the design goals clearly outlined in Wyatt's blog entry.  His "9:00 to 9:15" problem stems from two basic facts - daily resources in 3E are a significant part of a party's overall resources, and combat that depletes such resources can occur in the span of 15 game minutes.  The next step of the logic is to recognize the fact that no one has suggested lengthening the DnD combat round beyond 6 seconds.  On top of that, he (or someone did) calls out explicitly the "daily resource" issue as being the primary culprit for the "9:00-9:15" adventuring problem.

_So if you want to significantly affect the "9:00-9:15" adventuring problem and your only variable to play with are the resource levels (daily, per-encounter, at will, etc.) then you really are always going to have the same problem as long as a significant portion of the party's resources are of the "daily" variety._  Otherwise, you don't ever actually solve the problem that Wyatt claims is a problem.

Now granted, this is a matter of degree.  Given PCs *more* encounter level resources may extend the time they spend in the dungeon.  But really I don't find "9:00 to 9:15" to be an exaggeration since it represents 150 rounds, and I really doubt a PC party can fight for even a modest fraction of that before being completely out of powers.  So "extending" the capabilities of the PCs by even *multiples* of the current still gets you to a "9:00 to 9:45" problem - hardly worth the effort.

The idea that "per-encounter" means you get it back after 1 minute of rest was told to me by Patryn, who was quite taken back that I didn't know that that was what it meant (see earlier in this thread).  If you have an issue with this then IMO either take it up with him (because he might have more specifics) or tell me what you think "per-encounter" means.

And yes "clicking your fingers" is actually more effort than it would actually take.  Pretty much just sitting around and doing nothing for a minute gets your per-encounter powers back (according to Patryn's statements)

This is the reasoning that I have built up over dozens of posts on this thread.  I am sorry you are frustrated with saying things over and over, but perhaps you should make note of the "I don't know" part of your quote above and consider that perhaps you're not addressing many significant points in what you're saying and that is creating the illusion that we're not listening.  Perhaps if you understood better the fundementals of what some of us are arguing you'd be less frustrated in showing us the error of our ways.  I will continue to try, in good faith and for the sake of genuinely being understood, to make my case.  I would love to be wrong about what I think about 4E - but it's just not going happen by magic.

Otherwise - have a good weekend!


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I have trouble with the use of the word "difficulty" in this context.
> Situation One:  roll a 1 on a d20 or your imaginary character dies
> Situation Two:  roll a 1 on a d4 or your imaginary character dies
> 
> Is one situation really more "difficult" than the other?  Of course no combat situation is this simple, and perhaps you're thinking that tactical considerations mean the players have to think, like chess, and that's tough.
> 
> But I find it contrived and uncomfortable to think that I'm going to have to design each combat encounter to feature rope bridges over pits of fire and random explosions and other battlefield and tactical nuisances, and use them to a level that such tactical thinking would be a significant part of the outcome of the battle.  For the most part IME with DnD the encounter is won or lost on the basic strengths of the opponents.






  Fighting an enemy that you can kill with a single swordstroke is very easy. 

Fighting 4 such enemies, is less easy. 

  Fighting 2 enemies that each take at least 3 or 4 attacks to kill is more difficult than either. 

  Then there is fighting a single enemy that is immune to all but your most powerful forms of attack. Or fighting an enemy which is relatively vulnerable to your attacks, but who has an attack that will paralyse or kill you out right.

  Your thinking of "difficulty" in terms of either resource management, or death. Please stop. there is more too it than that.




> Now granted, this is a matter of degree. Given PCs *more* encounter level resources may extend the time they spend in the dungeon. But really I don't find "9:00 to 9:15" to be an exaggeration since it represents 150 rounds, and I really doubt a PC party can fight for even a modest fraction of that before being completely out of powers. So "extending" the capabilities of the PCs by even *multiples* of the current still gets you to a "9:00 to 9:45" problem - hardly worth the effort.






  Here are my thoughts on that mess.

A group who insists on being at 100% for every encounter, is going to do what they have to to do that, regardless. 

  In the current system, parties that WOULD NOT DO THAT often do so anyway because, among probably other reasons, certain characters have already run out of, or at least are well below everyone else in terms of resources at this point. 

  Having more tiers of resources simply means more options. For the "must be at 100% at all times" groups it isnt going to matter. For many other styles of groups, it will prevent them from feeling forced into courses of action they would rather not take. Now your probably going to say, "well the resting is just handwaved anyway," but some groups may not want to do that. Some groups may not handwave that time...or they may not want to, but want to be able to press on, or at least press on with the group at a more even level of resource depletion.


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> Can you give me an example of an encounter-level resource in the core 3.X rules? I know that Bo9S has them, but I'm having trouble thinking of any in the core rules.




Only things that you wouldn't want to do in the middle of combat but that you would want to do and could safely do once combat is over.  Any spell with a casting time of over one round has properties similar to encounter-level resources in that you would prepare it and cast it before combat, and then that's basically it until the battle is safely over.  (Granted, there's a daily aspect to it as well.)  Otherwise I'm stumped, but I'm not sure that changes the overall calculation because wouldn't at-will resources just be encounter level resources with a high enough usage count?

Oh - allowing people to recharge daily resources by just going outside the dungeon and camping and then going back into the dungeon with no apparent change to the environment or consequences for camping is an example of an "encounter-level" resource.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> And I wouldn't call the fighter's ability to swing his sword a "resource" at all. He can do it every round, as often as he wants to, all day long.




Actually he's limited to swinging the sword a set number of times per round, and he has to do it to the exclusion of other abilities.  Oh, and you can think of it as him "recharging" his ability each round.  What I've been asserting is that you don't consider it a resource because the recharge times and costs of usage are pretty low (in fact, non-existent)  This IMO will be the perception of any encounter-level resource usage one minute after the last swing in a 4E battle.

The main thing I see is that it doesn't matter - you pretty much just fire off your encounter-level resource.  You've got to survive the encounter, and the usage of the resource has no further effect than that, so the only consideration is not in the costs of it's use, but ONLY perhaps that another resource would be better to use that round.  That's not the same thing at all to a daily resource such as fireball - whose use against a pair of kobolds would certainly be effective but not well advised because of the consequences for use of daily resources that largely don't exist for encounter-level resources.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> In the context of these discussions, "resources" usually mean things that can be expended. And encounter-level resources can be expended just as easily as per-day resources can, so they have to be tracked by the players just as per-day resources do (at least for the duration of the encounter).




I've argued previously in this post that daily resources and encounter resources are qualitatively different.  Basically it stems from the fact that daily resources are recovered over a fixed time, whereas encounter level resources are recovered based on the danger being over with an a very small amount of fixed time afterwards.  These difference are significant are belied by the terminology that calls them both "X-level" resources.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> The presence of these per-encounter resources represents a fundamental difference from previous editions of D&D.




I think it at least represents a fundemental _addition_ to the game and in of itself does nothing to affect the "9:00 to 9:15" problem either way.  But it does add an interesting additional set of capabilities and I hope to see the mechanic in 4E.  It's with the _replacing of daily resources with encounter resources_ that I have concerns.  To the degree that it doesn't affect the overall structure of the game, it doesn't bother me, but also unfortunately doesn't solve Wyatt's problem either.  One of us is going to be disappointed unless Wyatt learns to DM differently, or I do, or there's some other solution we haven't thought of.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> Your thinking of "difficulty" in terms of either resource management, or death. Please stop. there is more too it than that.




"Please stop" does not constitute reasoning and so I continue to not see how your definition of "difficult" makes any sense to me.  I see your snarkiness and raise you one:  rolling dice is not difficult for me no matter what numbers you tell me to look for.  Maybe it's all the weight lifting.    :\

(edit - "Please stop" also assumes that my lack of understanding is a matter of will, which implies that I'm not raising these objections in good faith but instead just being argumentative when, if I really tried, I'd see things the way you do.  This probably makes sense in terms of frustration, but is not IMO true at all.)


----------



## FickleGM

I believe that taking Wyatt's design goals to their logical conclusion does not necessitate that hit points/ammunition/etc. are also going to be on a per-encounter basis.  I believe that the key is that certain class abilities, without which the character's abilities are greatly reduced, are what are being targetted for the per-encounter treatment.

We already know, from every edition of D&D, that depleted hit points do not greatly reduce a characters effectiveness (his longevity, yes, but not his effectiveness).  Having to fall back on his crossbow/daggers/staff/etc. (while admirable) does greatly reduce a wizards effectiveness.  This still may be a bit too much for some of you, but I believe that this is the actual goal of Wyatt's blog entry.

Of course, it does make for a more provocative post to say, "I snap my fingers after a minute and I'm back to 100%".


----------



## Imaro

Merlion said:
			
		

> Fighting an enemy that you can kill with a single swordstroke is very easy.
> 
> Fighting 4 such enemies, is less easy.
> 
> Fighting 2 enemies that each take at least 3 or 4 attacks to kill is more difficult than either.
> 
> Then there is fighting a single enemy that is immune to all but your most powerful forms of attack. Or fighting an enemy which is relatively vulnerable to your attacks, but who has an attack that will paralyse or kill you out right.
> 
> Your thinking of "difficulty" in terms of either resource management, or death. Please stop. there is more too it than that.




But even in this example resource management does come into play...

Fighting an enemy you can kill in a single swordstroke is easy

Fighting 4 such enemies is only less easy if you have to sacrifice something(hp's/spells/etc.) to do it otherwise it is no harder than the above encounter, just takes more dice rolls.

Fighting 2 enemies that take 3-4 attks to kill is again only less easy in how they affect your resources, if it's neligible then it is again as easy as encounter one and just takes longer to resolve.

Now fighting an enemy that is immune to all but your most powerful forms of attack. Or fighting an enemy which is relatively vulnerable to your attacks, but who has an attack that will paralyse or kill you out right.  

Both of these examples take away your at-will or per encounter resources(either by being immune to anything but your most powerful or paralysing you) or take all your resources by auto-killing you. thus yes it is more difficult than the first.  Yet we again went from breeze encounter(with varying lengths) to a supreme danger situation.  Either everything has to be able to neutralize your resources in one encounter or you will beat it with no consequences since they will recharge.


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think you're summary of the thread thus far was interesting and it did a good job of capturing my thoughts, at least.



Thanks. And thanks for your response. I should say upfront that I'm not necessarily a 4e advocate, in the sense that I'm not sure it's the game for me. But I do think that it reflects a reasonably considered approach to design. It's just that that approach is quite different from the more traditional D&D approach.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Experience adventurers who have survived numerous conflict are probably no longer operating at a level of impetuousness as does a noob.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The suggestion (and I've seen it several times from folks advocating this 4E style) is that somehow players put aside rationality and start acting according to extreme personality stereotypes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Possibly.  Gygax was a wargamer.  War has a tendency to be treated as a science by folks (Sun Tzu and all of that).  Most field manuals on war don't advise you to tap into your "heroic passions" for anything.



I don't dispute your characterisation of modern soldiers. But it's not true of all armed interpersonal conflict - for example, the duelling culture of early modern Europe was driven by non-rational considerations, such as honour.

I agree that 1st ed essentially rewards play that emulates a military operational approach. But there are other possible approaches to RPGing. What I am interested in is what mechanics will be introduced in 4e (if any) to support those other approaches (eg will there be anything like TRoS's Spiritual Attributes). Without those sorts of mechanics it will be hard to avoid the game reverting to rational resource management.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> If it devolves into a series of superficial encounters I'm not sure what RPGs would have to offer.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> *This, literally, is the opposite of open-ended.  Perhaps the expression is unfamiliar.*
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Why is it interesting?  Part of the assumption that the 4E style of play makes is that adversity=un-fun.  Given that the outcomes are pre-determined, and there's a shrinking list of strategically interesting options for the game, it's just a matter of time IMO before players realize their on a story-telling treadmill.  IMO this is only successful in the short-run because story-telling games rely on a spirit of the game established by wargamers - the only reason people think they can die in such games is because they read something about Gygax's game which described someone dying.  Sooner or later they'll catch on, and the story-telling game will have to sink or swim on it's own merits and not because it diguises itself as the type of game with variable outcomes.



The open-endedness that I had in mind was (i) the sequence of events prior to the climax is not pre-determined (unlike, for example, the typical 1st ed module, in which the dungeon is fairly linear) and (ii) the thematic signifcance of the climax may not be pre-determined (an example of this would be Keith Baker's Penumbra module "The Ebon Mirror").

As Hong has pointed out, open-endedness type (i) is supported by a move to per-encounter and a dropping of operational considerations. And open-endedness type (ii) is the answer to your question "What does the game have to offer?" It offers the potential for the exploration of themes. In that sense, the outcome is _not_ pre-deterined.

Unfortunately, I suspect that 4e won't emphasise thematic exploration (and I suspect that it may not have mechanics like Spiritual Attributes). Rather, I think it will emphasise "playing my guy and his/her cool powers". And I think you're right that that may not stay interesting for very long; and the game probably won't support resource-management play in the way earlier editions have. But then 5e will arrive to keep the game alive!

Like I said, I'm not necessarily defending 4e. I'm just trying to explain it as somewhat rational, on its own terms.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Someone on this board told me recently (and emphatically) that the "status quo" style of adventure was discussed in the 3E DMG and discussed an adventure that was designed according to what I've been calling versimilitude.  Why would that be there if it was Monte's design goal to exclude it.  Do you have a link where he's quoted on this topic?



The link is the one I gave in my post, namely, his column on spellcasters.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Hey!  That's a 30 year long nightmare called "Dungeons and Dragons" AFAICT.



Sure, but ever since 2E it's been changing. 2E emphasised "grand narrative" much more (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun) but didn't really provide the mechanics to support it. 3E changed direction more, and 4e is continuing the transition.

I think WoTC feel that there is simply not the demand, any more, for wargaming-style operational play. Like Hong, I think they're probably right. Whether this will lead to the death of the hobby I don't know. I'm not sure I agree with you that wargamer-types are the indispensible core of the hobby. I think that the world may have moved on. But that's realy just speculation on my part.


----------



## wgreen

It occurs to me that someone who has played with _Unearthed Arcana_'s spell recharge variant magic system might be able to provide us with valuable descriptions of their experiences.  Anyone?  

-Will


----------



## pemerton

Merlion said:
			
		

> To me, the whole discussion of playstyles is mostly irrelevent. People are going to play the game how they want to play it, regardless. I am discussing primarily the nature of the proposed mechanical changes, and there effect on combat and class balance within combat.



Merlion, I've agreed with a lot of your posts on this and other 4e threads. But here I have to disagree. Different mechanics support different playstyles, and I think it is quite important to discuss these issues.

The quote from James Wyatt itself refers to issues of playstyle, because it assumes that a purely resource-depletion/resource-management encounter is not interesting. Thus, mechanical changes are being made to eliminate such encounters. The new mechanics will therefore not support the play of those who do enjoy purely resource-depletion encounters.

While it is _possible_ to play a game in a style that its mechanics do not support, it is likely to be less satisfying then playing it in a style that the mechanics _do_ support.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Otherwise I'm stumped, but I'm not sure that changes the overall calculation because wouldn't at-will resources just be encounter level resources with a high enough usage count?



No. At-will resources are fundamentally different from per-encounter resources (unless your encounters always last only one round). With an at-will resource, the only thing you have to decide is whether it's better to use that resource or do something else in any given round. With a resource that's usable once per encounter, not only do you have to decide whether it's better to use it or do something else, but you also have to decide if that particular round is the best time to use it, or if it might be better to wait. That's a different calculus.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Oh - allowing people to recharge daily resources by just going outside the dungeon and camping and then going back into the dungeon with no apparent change to the environment or consequences for camping is an example of an "encounter-level" resource.



No, they're still per-day resources, it's just that the players and the DM have decided to have only one encounter per day. From a design point of view, in 3E, these abilities weren't supposed to be used in every encounter. 3E wizards, for example, aren't balanced against the assumption that they'll be able to cast all their most powerful spells in every encounter.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Actually he's limited to swinging the sword a set number of times per round, and he has to do it to the exclusion of other abilities.  Oh, and you can think of it as him "recharging" his ability each round.  What I've been asserting is that you don't consider it a resource because the recharge times and costs of usage are pretty low (in fact, non-existent)  This IMO will be the perception of any encounter-level resource usage one minute after the last swing in a 4E battle.



But the important time frame is not _after_ the battle, it's _during_ the battle. If you're in the middle of a difficult fight, choosing when and how to use your encounter-level resources is critically important. You want to get the most bang for your buck, so to speak. And as someone else pointed out, per-encounter resources are still limited (which is what makes them fundamentally different from "at-will" abilities). For example, if you have a 1/encounter fireball, is it better to use it right at the beginning of the fight, or wait and hope your friends can maneuver the enemies closer together?



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The main thing I see is that it doesn't matter - you pretty much just fire off your encounter-level resource.  You've got to survive the encounter, and the usage of the resource has no further effect than that, so the only consideration is not in the costs of it's use, but ONLY perhaps that another resource would be better to use that round.  That's not the same thing at all to a daily resource such as fireball - whose use against a pair of kobolds would certainly be effective but not well advised because of the consequences for use of daily resources that largely don't exist for encounter-level resources.



The designers have said that 4E is going to feature more monsters per encounter. I agree, if you come across two kobolds in the middle of an open field, you would just fire off your 1/encounter fireball and move on. But if you're facing a couple dozen kobolds, swarming in from several different directions, with the possibility of more behind them - well, then the choice to use your 1/encounter fireball isn't quite such a no-brainer, is it? There are still plenty of interesting and relevant choices players can make with per-encounter abilities - it's not just the "ho-hum, I'll use everything and then recharge" situation you're making it out to be.


----------



## Merlion

pemerton said:
			
		

> Thus, mechanical changes are being made to eliminate such encounters. The new mechanics will therefore not support the play of those who do enjoy purely resource-depletion encounters.





  I don't think we know enough to know that for sure. Its certainly reasonble to think its possible, and it is likely that it won't be as supported, but I dont think it will be totally unsupported. I think strong elements of it will remain.

  Also, theres an issue of degree and numbers. Resource depletion is right now mainly an issue for spellcasters...and most of all an issue for wizards. The hardest hit will be the subset of wizard players who are really into the threat of depleted resources. But my experience both in real life and on these boards is that thats a very small subset.


----------



## Merlion

Grog said:
			
		

> No. At-will resources are fundamentally different from per-encounter resources (unless your encounters always last only one round). With an at-will resource, the only thing you have to decide is whether it's better to use that resource or do something else in any given round. With a resource that's usable once per encounter, not only do you have to decide whether it's better to use it or do something else, but you also have to decide if that particular round is the best time to use it, or if it might be better to wait. That's a different calculus.
> 
> 
> No, they're still per-day resources, it's just that the players and the DM have decided to have only one encounter per day. From a design point of view, in 3E, these abilities weren't supposed to be used in every encounter. 3E wizards, for example, aren't balanced against the assumption that they'll be able to cast all their most powerful spells in every encounter.
> 
> 
> But the important time frame is not _after_ the battle, it's _during_ the battle. If you're in the middle of a difficult fight, choosing when and how to use your encounter-level resources is critically important. You want to get the most bang for your buck, so to speak. And as someone else pointed out, per-encounter resources are still limited (which is what makes them fundamentally different from "at-will" abilities). For example, if you have a 1/encounter fireball, is it better to use it right at the beginning of the fight, or wait and hope your friends can maneuver the enemies closer together?
> 
> 
> The designers have said that 4E is going to feature more monsters per encounter. I agree, if you come across two kobolds in the middle of an open field, you would just fire off your 1/encounter fireball and move on. But if you're facing a couple dozen kobolds, swarming in from several different directions, with the possibility of more behind them - well, then the choice to use your 1/encounter fireball isn't quite such a no-brainer, is it? There are still plenty of interesting and relevant choices players can make with per-encounter abilities - it's not just the "ho-hum, I'll use everything and then recharge" situation you're making it out to be.





This is much of what I have been getting at put a bit more precisely.


----------



## FireLance

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Wizards are what wizards do.  Very few wizards of even fantasy literature where issues like play balance and equal oppurtunity to be the focus of attention don't matter in the slightest, Wizards - and most certainly novice ones - rarely go around slinging spells continually.  Rather, it is assumed that there is some sort of limitation on thier ability of some sort.  The notion that to 'contribute as a wizard' I must never run out of spells to fire off is a rather strange one to me.



Actually, I think there are good narrative reasons why wizards in fantasy literature are usually subject to some sort of limitation. In many cases, the wizard (or generic spellcasting type) is not the protagonist, and the limitations are there to prevent him from overshadowing the protagonist. In the cases where the wizard is the protagonist (such as in Harry Potter), the limitations may be there so that the character acts "normal" occasionally, which helps the reader identify more fully with him (e.g. Harry's problems in the mundane world, where his ability to use magic is restricted), or the limitations are the challenge to be overcome, or are there to create dramatic tension (e.g. the tension from dwindling resources is one thing that a Vancian spellcasting system with a long refresh period does do well).


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't dispute your characterisation of modern soldiers. But it's not true of all armed interpersonal conflict - for example, the duelling culture of early modern Europe was driven by non-rational considerations, such as honour.




But I was assuming that only the tactical issues are of relevance here.  Who you choose to kill is possibly an emotional issue, but *how* you choose to do it is probably based on a more rational assessment of the situation (or at least it is if you want to live).  The dueling culture operated according to a formal set of rules so largely passions had little or nothing to do with how such things resolved themselves tactically.

In any case, a move to encounter-level resources AFAICT has no bearing on how easy emotional issues are to interject into DnD.  This came up because someone (I think) claimed that emotional issues could help replace the dimension of interest lost when you lose the operational/resource dimension from DnD combat.

The only think I would think that would be a counter example would be cultural inertia - "we've been wearing platemail and using swords, and it's cowardly to not wear armor and use guns" sort of thing.  However, those sorts of decisions were complicated by the fact that IRL no one can read a "manual".  In comparison, players of DnD are very well educated about the effectiveness of various weapons and tactics and it's hard for me to imagine that they can put aside that knowledge for the sake of roleplaying.  Or that they should in order to make a certain set of rules viable (which is a debateable point, granted).



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I agree that 1st ed essentially rewards play that emulates a military operational approach. But there are other possible approaches to RPGing. What I am interested in is what mechanics will be introduced in 4e (if any) to support those other approaches (eg will there be anything like TRoS's Spiritual Attributes). Without those sorts of mechanics it will be hard to avoid the game reverting to rational resource management.




Perhaps, but if folks are going to argue for a magic system that emulates literature, here I would equally argue for an operational approach that emulates literature.  It would require an excessively detailed analysis to establish this, but I would argue that characters like Conan and Aragorn, while they have personality and emotional issues, those issues are not a significant factor in their tactical approach to combat.  They still use optimal weapons and tactics available.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> The open-endedness that I had in mind was (i) the sequence of events prior to the climax is not pre-determined (unlike, for example, the typical 1st ed module, in which the dungeon is fairly linear) and (ii) the thematic signifcance of the climax may not be pre-determined (an example of this would be Keith Baker's Penumbra module "The Ebon Mirror").




Well, I don't want to quibble about the metaphor, but open-endedness is talking about the ends, and therefore having a number of ways you can reach a pre-determined conclusion is not open ended by virtue of the existence of the pre-determined conclusion.

(IMO it's also a very controversial thing to say that a typical 1E module is linear, I (and other folks) strongly believe this actually the opposite of the truth and that lack of linearity is a distinguishing characteristic of old-school modules, but I guess that's a tangent.  - I can't believe you said that though, I'll stop hyperventilating   )



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> And open-endedness type (ii) is the answer to your question "What does the game have to offer?" It offers the potential for the exploration of themes. In that sense, the outcome is _not_ pre-deterined.




Outcome of what?  Some of this I just don't get at all.  Other stuff, like the use of "open-endedness" I suspect we have significant differences of definition.  Finally, I'm not sure why a the resource management aspect of DnD is getting in the way of folks' exploration of themes.  All aspect of the game have the potential of getting in way of themes - story-telling and the use of dice to randomly determine outcomes are in direct opposition to one another - though they can be managed and blended.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I suspect that 4e won't emphasise thematic exploration (and I suspect that it may not have mechanics like Spiritual Attributes). Rather, I think it will emphasise "playing my guy and his/her cool powers". And I think you're right that that may not stay interesting for very long; and the game probably won't support resource-management play in the way earlier editions have. But then 5e will arrive to keep the game alive!




 Yea, there's always 5E to render any of these other considerations a moot point.  One thing though, I don't know what you mean by "thematic exploration" - perhaps that's something that's worth another thread to define.  I suspect it has to do with a kind of story-telling style that doesn't suit my gaming style, but other than the vocabulary I have nothing to base that on.  

In any case, I think I'd rather see a story telling game, than what I think 4E might turn into, which I think is more along the lines of the "playing my guy" thing you talk about.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Like I said, I'm not necessarily defending 4e. I'm just trying to explain it as somewhat rational, on its own terms.




Well that's really useful because some of us are scratching our heads thinking "what in the heck are they thinking" so it's helpful and brave of you (and the others) to try to make sense of this, even if it's not exactly your fight.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> The link is the one I gave in my post, namely, his column on spellcasters.




Ok, I'll check it out.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Sure, but ever since 2E it's been changing. 2E emphasised "grand narrative" much more (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun) but didn't really provide the mechanics to support it. 3E changed direction more, and 4e is continuing the transition.




Change to what?  To storytelling?  IMO 3E actually was a reverse direction from the 2E culture.  It put dungeon crawling, action, and hack-and-slash back into the mix with a degree of respect that was missing in 2E.  There are so many moving parts to this picture that I guess you could make all sorts of generalizations - but I'm pretty sure that the 3E DMG describes the "kick down the door" style of adventuring as one of the core, supported styles.  In fact, I don't think anything really changed with 3E concept wise - mostly it was a change in the tactical aspects of combat and the detail level of character building.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I agree with you that wargamer-types are the indispensible core of the hobby. I think that the world may have moved on. But that's realy just speculation on my part.




"Moved on" ?!      I think the world is still the same inanimate pile of minerals that it always has been.  That there is a vocal, aggressive, and influential (and possibly numerous) group of people that don't think like I do doesn't particularly concern me.  I got used to it when country music was popular, I'm sure I'll survive this.

However, I don't think this encounter-level resource issue really serves the roleplayer-storytellers very well either.  I don't think their needs and those of the wargamers are necessarily in opposition, and as you point out (I think IIRC), the eventually design of 4E might suit neither one of us properly.

So I don't see how removing the operational aspects from the game improve the story telling aspects.  And I don't see that as part of Wyatt's core thesis.  It doesn't hurt the story to say "you guys got really beat up today and you'll have to spend the day healing and recovering in order to continue"  It's not necessarily contrary to a plot-driven game to have pseudo-realistic consequences for getting hit in the head with an axe over and over.

The type of gaming IMO that the operational stuff interfers with is *not* plot-driven story-telling - it's hyper-accelerated hack and slash gaming of the type I see in the descriptions of World of Warcraft.  I don't think anyone would argue that World of Warcraft is an optimal story-telling vehicle.  And making the game more like WoW IMO is going to make it hard for the hobby to survive because it doesn't play to the strengths of what RPGs have to offer - the WoW engine and system does what it sets out to do extremely well.  It's like this:  I say pick the right tool for the job - and a paper-and-pencil, human-moderated RPG is not the right tool for a WoW style adventure game.


----------



## med stud

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I don't play any civ 4, so I can't comment on whether or not what you're saying here is a counter to my points.  Why not stick with chess for a momment?  Surely you concede that your chess-as-encounter analogy fails on the basis of the all-or-nothing nature of the game?




Why should I stick to chess? I used it as an analogy to illustrate that tactics are important even in a system where you can expand all your resources with abandon. Next time you play chess, you pick up the board and put up all your pieces. I didn't make any further analogies with chess though I responded to some other analogy. So, "surely" I won't concede my analogy exactly because that I was after! In the sense that if all powers are per encouter you can use them all in a given encounter but it _still_ leaves room for tactics. That was my point and I won't concede it.

About civ 4, my point wasn't being civ 4 exactly; I will put it in more general terms; even games were you can win all the time can be interesting not because you win but because _how_ you win, trying out the best method, trying to win as fast as possible etc. There, you have my argument without having to know anything about civ 4.


----------



## Hussar

med stud said:
			
		

> Why should I stick to chess? I used it as an analogy to illustrate that tactics are important even in a system where you can expand all your resources with abandon. Next time you play chess, you pick up the board and put up all your pieces. I didn't make any further analogies with chess though I responded to some other analogy. So, "surely" I won't concede my analogy exactly because that I was after! In the sense that if all powers are per encouter you can use them all in a given encounter but it _still_ leaves room for tactics. That was my point and I won't concede it.
> 
> About civ 4, my point wasn't being civ 4 exactly; I will put it in more general terms; even games were you can win all the time can be interesting not because you win but because _how_ you win, trying out the best method, trying to win as fast as possible etc. There, you have my argument without having to know anything about civ 4.




A thought just occurred.  Aren't PC's supposed to win all the time?  I mean, if they lose, by and large, they die and the game ends.  If you want the game to continue, the PC's have to win at least most if not all the time.  Does it really matter if the mechanics are such that they win using X or Y amount of their resources?  At the end of the day, the monster is dead, they move on to the next challenge.  

What difference does it really make if they move on to the next challenge an hour or a day from now?  Since the time passing is largely handwaved anyway, who cares?


----------



## med stud

Hussar said:
			
		

> A thought just occurred.  Aren't PC's supposed to win all the time?  I mean, if they lose, by and large, they die and the game ends.  If you want the game to continue, the PC's have to win at least most if not all the time.  Does it really matter if the mechanics are such that they win using X or Y amount of their resources?  At the end of the day, the monster is dead, they move on to the next challenge.
> 
> What difference does it really make if they move on to the next challenge an hour or a day from now?  Since the time passing is largely handwaved anyway, who cares?




You made my point better than I did


----------



## Rakin

If PC's are expected to win every time, then where the fun in winning? Might as well sit down at the table, have the GM announce "You all win!", everyone cheers and then the all go watch 12 hours of Futurama.

The fun is in seeing if that one special avatar can make it through the thick and thin, and become epic by doing what all those other characters that you rolled, that have died, coudln't do.


----------



## Agamon

Does lose necessarily mean die?  Does it even always mean lose a fight?

Of course the PCs shouldn't always succeed in absolutely everything they do.  This is, indeed, pointless.  But they should be moving forward in the campaign in a relatively positive manner.  Setbacks make the wins more fun, but they shouldn't be prevalent.

And for the record, rerolling PCs until one finally doesn't die isn't my idea of a great time, but YMMV.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Rakin said:
			
		

> If PC's are expected to win every time, then where the fun in winning? Might as well sit down at the table, have the GM announce "You all win!", everyone cheers and then the all go watch 12 hours of Futurama.
> 
> The fun is in seeing if that one special avatar can make it through the thick and thin, and become epic by doing what all those other characters that you rolled, that have died, coudln't do.



The PCs are expected to win every time, because otherwise, the adventure/story does not continue. But they have to do something for it. It is hard, but there is reasonable chance that, if they are smart enough, they _will_ prevail. 
You don't put Ancient Wyrms in a 1st level dungeon because that leaves no chance to "win". Instead, you maybe put a Wyrmling in it, or a 2ndlevel Orc Chieftain and his two 1st level Orc guards at the end of the encounter. It will be hard, but it is still fair. 

In the "daily resource" scheme, you will sometimes need to put only the Orc Chieftain in that encounter, because you expect that the PCs will have expended a lot of their resources when they reach him. Unless they were allowed to rest, in which case you either have an easier encounter or just add the two guards back in - it's not like the PCs really knew. In an "encounter resource" scheme, the two guards can stay there. 

It's not critically bad that you might sometimes adjust your adventure on the fly, but I think it feels better if you don't have to do it.


----------



## Geron Raveneye

A quote from John Wick, taken from the L5R GM's Screen booklet, that always reminds me what "fun" is about in roleplaying games...



			
				John Wick said:
			
		

> Some RPGs tell you to be fair.
> Others tell you to be arbitrary.
> Not us.
> We tell you to hit your players below the belt.
> Never give 'em a break.
> Never let up.
> Never take it easy on them.
> Why? Because they'll hate you if you do.
> The fact of the matter is, players are a masochistic lot. They want you to run their character through the grinder. They want you to take advantage of their character's weaknesses, to pummel them mercilessly and leace them in a bloody pulp.
> 
> However - and here's the tricky part - they also want to *win*.
> 
> If you've ever seen the _Die Hard_ movies, you know exactly what I'm talking about. At the end of every film, John McLane is bruised, bloody and busted up beyond all hope of repair. But he also got the better of the bad guys. That's what players really want. They want to come out heroes, but they want to do it by the skin of their teeth.




I can't generalize it as John Wick did, but a LOT of the players I played with fit into that description, and the biggest fun was had in adventures where exactly that happened...the characters beat the odds and came out heroes, crawling, but alive.

Seeing the happy grins at the end of such a session, that's what fun is about in an RPG.


----------



## Merlion

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> A quote from John Wick, taken from the L5R GM's Screen booklet, that always reminds me what "fun" is about in roleplaying games...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't generalize it as John Wick did, but a LOT of the players I played with fit into that description, and the biggest fun was had in adventures where exactly that happened...the characters beat the odds and came out heroes, crawling, but alive.
> 
> Seeing the happy grins at the end of such a session, that's what fun is about in an RPG.






  And so far, I see no reason to foresee the proposed changes taking that away (not that you were necessarily saying they would.)


----------



## Geron Raveneye

Merlion said:
			
		

> And so far, I see no reason to foresee the proposed changes taking that away (not that you were necessarily saying they would.)




True, I didn't...mostly because I have the impression that D&D isn't the best game to simulate that kind of ending anyway, to be honest, mostly because in terms of game-effect, wounds and spellcasting don't have any effect on the efficiency of the character, only the combat endurance (how long he can kick ass and take names in combat), so as far as D&D is concerned, the characters might as well come out of something like _Die Hard_ and look like they just got out of bed.


----------



## FickleGM

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> A quote from John Wick, taken from the L5R GM's Screen booklet, that always reminds me what "fun" is about in roleplaying games...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't generalize it as John Wick did, but a LOT of the players I played with fit into that description, and the biggest fun was had in adventures where exactly that happened...the characters beat the odds and came out heroes, crawling, but alive.
> 
> Seeing the happy grins at the end of such a session, that's what fun is about in an RPG.




If I had players like that, I may have a different attitude regarding the proposed changes (maybe not, but I'd be looking at them through a different lense).

The majority of my players aren't in it for the challenge, however, so much as for other reasons.  I have a couple that want to be really challenged and none of them want me to just say, "you win".  So, I usually give a bunch of "token challenges," meant to keep them busy (and entertain them, of course) and then drop in a real challenge every session or two.  The "token challenges" are occasionally more difficult than anticipated, but are meant to be easily handled.  The real challenges are the ones that can sidetrack a campaign, kill a character or perhaps even cause a TPK.

So, it really does depend on what you are looking for in a game.  The next edition of D&D appears to be catering to my players, so it will probably make my transition very easy.  I'll cross my fingers that this is the case...


----------



## FickleGM

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> True, I didn't...mostly because I have the impression that D&D isn't the best game to simulate that kind of ending anyway, to be honest, mostly because in terms of game-effect, wounds and spellcasting don't have any effect on the efficiency of the character, only the combat endurance (how long he can kick ass and take names in combat), so as far as D&D is concerned, the characters might as well come out of something like _Die Hard_ and look like they just got out of bed.



 Yeah, it does seem that with D&D, it's up to the players to portray their characters as having the "just got my ass kicked, but prevailed"-look, since the mechanics aren't going to do it for them.


----------



## Rakin

Bah, why would I want to sit around a table pretending to play while one guy just manipulates the story so winning without death is going to be guaranteed?

Might as well just sit around the table while someone reads a fantasy novel to the players and randomly roll dice.

How incredibly boring! Where's the sense of danger? Where's the fear?

(Just so you know I used to run a game like this when I used to play 3.5, and it was boring!  )

So! The fun in that sort of playing comes learning mechanics? Oh! And is that why in the new D&D coming out everyone just argues mechanics and why they're getting mad that their 20th level fighter/mage/rogue won't be able to do crazy spinning death kicks of doom with fireballs coming from their feet because the rules say they're not allowed to anymore?


----------



## Merlion

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> True, I didn't...mostly because I have the impression that D&D isn't the best game to simulate that kind of ending anyway, to be honest, mostly because in terms of game-effect, wounds and spellcasting don't have any effect on the efficiency of the character, only the combat endurance (how long he can kick ass and take names in combat), so as far as D&D is concerned, the characters might as well come out of something like _Die Hard_ and look like they just got out of bed.





  But I have still seen what you describe take place many times because..





			
				FickleGM said:
			
		

> Yeah, it does seem that with D&D, it's up to the players to portray their characters as having the "just got my ass kicked, but prevailed"-look, since the mechanics aren't going to do it for them.





  The players did this. This is one of the areas that, while I wouldnt mind mechanics reflecting it, its not necessary. Its linked to the concept of difficulty I was trying to get gizmo to understand. The characters, and their players, know how much effort, thought, power and possibly injury they put into overcoming a challenge. And the changes to the rules arent going to take any of that away.


----------



## Rel

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> A quote from John Wick, taken from the L5R GM's Screen booklet, that always reminds me what "fun" is about in roleplaying games...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't generalize it as John Wick did, but a LOT of the players I played with fit into that description, and the biggest fun was had in adventures where exactly that happened...the characters beat the odds and came out heroes, crawling, but alive.
> 
> Seeing the happy grins at the end of such a session, that's what fun is about in an RPG.




This maps very closely to my experience.  The games where it looks like they PC's are going to lose and then, by inspiration, genius or just plain luck, they pull it out of the fire and win, are the ones we all remember and talk about years later.

I don't aim for that sort of experience every session.  More often than not I set things up so that the PC's will probably win unless they are particularly uninspired, foolish or just plain unlucky.  But sometimes those things happen and those wind up as memorable sessions too.

When the players watch their PC's cheat death, the excitement just takes over and suddenly they are jumping out of their chairs and high fiving each other.  A bunch of grown-ass men clapping and cheering because their imaginary barbarian rolled a 20 on some piece of plastic.  It's magical.  However I can't get that sort of tension if the players don't believe it is possible for them to fail and to die.

As for the story and whether it goes on, as folks more eloquent than I have said, "The story is not what the GM and players plan to happen.  The story is what retrospectively took place during the course of the campaign."  Even if that story involved a key PC dying in a fight that you thought would be easy or a TPK in a fight you thought would be tough but not impossible, THAT is the story as far as I'm concerned.

On that note, I'll say one final thing:  I've had as many or more plotlines derailed by character successes than by their failures or deaths.  That recurring bad guy who was going to get away?  Well I forgot the the Wizard had that scroll of Web, didn't I.  The sinister plot that the Evil Cultist was plotting?  Who knew he was going to roll a natural 1 on his Save vs. Detect Thoughts?  They would of course need to go on the quest for the Dragon Slaying Sword...except that the Barbarian charged up there and did 76 points of damage in one swing on that crit.  In all cases you just roll with those punches and continue with the game.  It's no different when the PC's suffer setbacks in my opinion.


----------



## FickleGM

Rakin said:
			
		

> Bah, why would I want to sit around a table pretending to play while one guy just manipulates the story so winning without death is going to be guaranteed?
> 
> Might as well just sit around the table while someone reads a fantasy novel to the players and randomly roll dice.
> 
> How incredibly boring! Where's the sense of danger? Where's the fear?
> 
> (Just so you know I used to run a game like this when I used to play 3.5, and it was boring!  )
> 
> So! The fun in that sort of playing comes learning mechanics? Oh! And is that why in the new D&D coming out everyone just argues mechanics and why they're getting mad that their 20th level fighter/mage/rogue won't be able to do crazy spinning death kicks of doom with fireballs coming from their feet because the rules say they're not allowed to anymore?



 Speaking for myself, I've never guaranteed anything.  Even my "token challenges" can be very deadly if the players make the wrong decisions.

As far as answering your question, you obviously wouldn't want to play in a game that I have planned for my normal players.  My players ask to be railroaded.  My players want to be challenged only some of the time.  My players can handle being beaten down, but don't want to die (sometimes, that is an unfortunate side-effect of adventuring that even I won't protect them from).  My players wouldn't be a fit for you, at all.

With all of that said, it is still possible that both styles of play can be accomodated by the new rules, but it does seem that my style will be easier to do. 

EDIT: I would like to add that when my players come crawling out of the rubble on their bellies, barely snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, they are happy.  If they see that I've planned this sort of game, they do not react well (I suppose that they only want me to "mostly railroad them" and "somewhat challenge them" *shrug*).  This is why I only provide such "real challenges" only once every couple sessions (and the real tough ones even less often).  I just don't rely on resource depletion as a way to ramp up the challenge, because resource depletion usually has a negative effect on my games (to tie it back into this thread).


----------



## Merlion

Imaro said:
			
		

> But even in this example resource management does come into play...
> 
> Fighting an enemy you can kill in a single swordstroke is easy
> 
> Fighting 4 such enemies is only less easy if you have to sacrifice something(hp's/spells/etc.) to do it otherwise it is no harder than the above encounter, just takes more dice rolls.
> 
> Fighting 2 enemies that take 3-4 attks to kill is again only less easy in how they affect your resources, if it's neligible then it is again as easy as encounter one and just takes longer to resolve.
> 
> Now fighting an enemy that is immune to all but your most powerful forms of attack. Or fighting an enemy which is relatively vulnerable to your attacks, but who has an attack that will paralyse or kill you out right.
> 
> Both of these examples take away your at-will or per encounter resources(either by being immune to anything but your most powerful or paralysing you) or take all your resources by auto-killing you. thus yes it is more difficult than the first.  Yet we again went from breeze encounter(with varying lengths) to a supreme danger situation.  Either everything has to be able to neutralize your resources in one encounter or you will beat it with no consequences since they will recharge.






  But I am not solely talking about mechanics. And from the mechanical aspect that I am aproaching, the fact that you used the resources is what I am talking about, wether they get replenished or not.

  It had consquences in the moment. If you use a per encounter ability, you can't use it again that encounter. So if it doesnt end the fight, you have one less resource to continue using during that fight.

  But my real point is levels of difficulty.

A Bugbear is harder to defeat than a kobold.

  A hill giant is harder to defeat than a bugbear. 

An adult red dragon is harder to defeat than a hill giant.

  And of course some enemies may be both harder to defeat, and more likely to defeat or cripple you. 

  Difficulty levels exist between very easy and very hard. There is in between...I'm not even talking about resource wise, I'm talking effort and/or risk wise.


----------



## Rakin

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Speaking for myself, I've never guaranteed anything.  Even my "token challenges" can be very deadly if the players make the wrong decisions.
> 
> As far as answering your question, you obviously wouldn't want to play in a game that I have planned for my normal players.  My players ask to be railroaded.  My players want to be challenged only some of the time.  My players can handle being beaten down, but don't want to die (sometimes, that is an unfortunate side-effect of adventuring that even I won't protect them from).  My players wouldn't be a fit for you, at all.
> 
> With all of that said, it is still possible that both styles of play can be accomodated by the new rules, but it does seem that my style will be easier to do.
> 
> EDIT: I would like to add that when my players come crawling out of the rubble on their bellies, barely snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, they are happy.  If they see that I've planned this sort of game, they do not react well (I suppose that they only want me to "mostly railroad them" and "somewhat challenge them" *shrug*).  This is why I only provide such "real challenges" only once every couple sessions (and the real tough ones even less often).  I just don't rely on resource depletion as a way to ramp up the challenge, because resource depletion usually has a negative effect on my games (to tie it back into this thread).



I guess you gotta apeal to the masses. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Andre said:
			
		

> The party had just finished their third encounter in the caves, a real tough one in which a couple characters almost dropped and a lot of spells were cast. One of the players looks around and states, "Well, I guess we better pull out and rest." The other player and I look at her and ask simultaneously "Why?"
> 
> She was so used to having to stop in the middle of adventures and rest to recover spells that it was a habit. A bad habit. One we've broken nicely.




For me, this is not necessarily a feature. Being forced to retreat and lick your wounds is a dynamic I like. It makes the characters human. It adds variety.

Now, if they can find a way to support longer adventure days WITHOUT completely eliminating the need to retreat and rest, then it'll be fine.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OK, then.  Here's the problem as I see/understand it:
> 
> (1)  Each battle either does or does not use up per-day resources.  I will consider PC death as a per-day resource.
> 
> (1a)  If a battle does not use up per-day resources, nothing is lost in engaging in that battle.  This means:
> 
> (1ai)  The PCs can engage in an effectively endless number of these battles.
> 
> (1aii)  The only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff.
> 
> (1b)  If a battle doe use up per-day resources, the PCs will be at less than full capacity.  This means:
> 
> (1bi)  These battles are automatically much more important than the other battles.
> 
> (1bii)  The PCs can only engage in a limited number of these battles per day.
> 
> (1biii)  This impact of these battles is to make the PCs less able to deal with future events.
> 
> To my mind, these things together lead to several conclusions
> 
> <many conclusions snipped>
> 
> I believe that the designers are correct in terms of _initial_ play (first 3-6 months), but the more players become aware of the meaninglessness (in a metagame sense) of the majority of encounters, the less excited they will be by those encounters, the less fun they will have, and the more they will want to get on to the "real" encounters that have a chance to significantly (in a metagame sense) impact the game.



Very clear derivation of your conclusions.

I think, however, that in principle (1aii) is false. A battle can have a _thematic_ impact without having either a resource-attrition or resource-enhancement impact. If the aim of the game is to explore thematic content, then such impacts can be significant and rewarding at the metagame level.

I am not sure that 4e embraces this metagame goal, however.

If it does not, and if the only reward of these non-resource-impacting batles is the thrill of "playing my guy and using all those nifty abilities", then I think your prediction about the evolution of play has a reasonable degree of plausibility.


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't want to quibble about the metaphor, but open-endedness is talking about the ends, and therefore having a number of ways you can reach a pre-determined conclusion is not open ended by virtue of the existence of the pre-determined conclusion.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "thematic exploration" - perhaps that's something that's worth another thread to define.



Thanks again for the reply.

By "open-endedness" and "thematic exploration" I had in mind the following sorts of examples. The first is from "The Ebon Mirror" - so I better give a SPOILER ALERT - the second from my own game many years ago:

*The climax to the module requires the players to choose whether the half-orc antagonist is reborn as a pure orc, reborn as a pure human, or remains a half-orc. Each alternative has implicaitons (spelled out by the module author, Keith Baker) for the personality of the antagonist and her future relationship with the PCs. Each also has implications that are not spelled out, but are obvious in the context of the adventure and the nature of the choice posed, for an understanding of racial identity in D&D and therefore (I believe) in the real world. Which choice the players should make is not mandated; unlike many typical modules, therefore, the win is not rail-roaded (contrast this with, for example, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where there is a climactic choice at the end, but the adventure writer tells us what counts as a win, so we have an incentive to use Detect Magic etc to learn which is the true Grail - in "The Ebon Mirror" even knowing the consequences of each choice does not tell the players what counts as a win - the thematic determination is there's to make). In this sense the adventure is open-ended.

*The climax to one of my adventures involved the PCs travelling to another plane, where an enemy cult were preparing a sacrifice to a dark god. The PCs had been intending to fight them. One of the PCs, upon learning the motivations and reasoning of the cult, instead decided to join with them, and helped them sacrifice another of the PCs. This choice (unsurprisingly) fundamentally altered the direction of the campaign from then on.​
In both these examples, the circumstances and context of the climax are pre-determined by the adventure writer, but it's resolution - and especially the thematic implications of that resolution - are up to the players. This is (in my view) a type of rewarding open-endedness that does not rely upon resource management.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Who you choose to kill is possibly an emotional issue, but *how* you choose to do it is probably based on a more rational assessment of the situation (or at least it is if you want to live).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In any case, a move to encounter-level resources AFAICT has no bearing on how easy emotional issues are to interject into DnD.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In comparison, players of DnD are very well educated about the effectiveness of various weapons and tactics and it's hard for me to imagine that they can put aside that knowledge for the sake of roleplaying.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I would argue that characters like Conan and Aragorn, while they have personality and emotional issues, those issues are not a significant factor in their tactical approach to combat.  They still use optimal weapons and tactics available.




If the focus of the game is thematic, in the way I've tried to explain above, one can then introduce mechanics which empower players to pursue the themes that interest them, and remove the incentives you identify always to fall back upon the "tactically superior" options.

For example, suppose a player decides one motivation for his character is to "uphold my late father's honour" and this includes wielding his father's sword. That PC might receive a bonus of +1 dice of damage whenever pursuing this goal. The player then has an incentive to pursue the theme, and does not have to trade off that goal against the prospect that the +1 greatsword is a tactically superior choice to his father's cutlass.

Linking this to novels, Aragorn and Conan both fight better when there is something at stake that moves them deeply. Mechanics can support that - perhaps Aragorn gets +1 dice when wielding Narsil/Anduril, +1 dice when fighting to restore his kingdom. Then the player of Aragorn has an incentive to push the game in a certain direction, make certain choices, and gets rewarded not just by engaging in tactically superior play, but by pursuing certain themes even if they are (from the tactical point of view) irrational. For example, charging a troll might be irrational in general, but if Aragorn does it wielding Narsil, because it is the only way to keep his hopes of inheritance alive, he gets +2 dice of damage and suddenly it becomes mechanically feasible to make the choice which would in other circumstances be irrational.

Per-encounter rather than per-day resources can support this sort of play by stopping operational considerations from getting in the way of these thematically-driven choices.

Of course, for a fully dynamic and open-ended game of this sort the player has to be able to change his or her thematic commitments. TRoS's Spiritual Attributes allow for this. So do The Dying Earth's tagline rules (in a much more light-hearted way).

I will be interested to see whether 4e has any mechanics of this sort. I suspect that it will not, but you never know.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> This assumes that the only reason to have a battle is to consume resources. But there's another, much simpler reason to have battles - because they're fun. And I don't think most gaming groups judge how much fun a battle was by how many per-day resources it consumed. I've been gaming for a long time now, and I've never played in a group that judged how much fun a battle was in that way.





Question:  Then whysoever, may I ask, have we been told time and time again, to eschew that "4 goblins vs. 10th level figher" in 3.X?

Answer:  Because we are told that it is not fun.

Question:  Why are we told that it is not fun?

Answer:  Because it is not significant, and more specifically because it has no chance to affect the outcome of the adventure.

Question:  If this was true for 3e, why would it not be true for 4e?

Answer:  ????


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> And also lets remember there are more degrees than life or death or "gimme". Theres a wide range in between.





That's actually the crux of the argument.

I would contend that there were more degrees in 1e, where even a goblin could potentially affect a 10th level fighter, than in 3e.

I would contend that the reduction of resource management in 4e will again lessen the scope between life and death or "gimme", and I have seen no answer to that argument other than, effectively, ignoring the argument or "I will that it shall not be so, therefore it shall not be so."

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> Oh, and one other thing. Even looking at it solely from the standpoint of how many resources are expended, a hypothetical 4E fight that only uses per-encounter resources isn't comparable to a "4 goblins against a 10th level fighter" scenario, because that scenario uses _no resources at all_. Which isn't the same thing as a fight in which per-encounter resources are used.





Again, you are closing in on the point.

Please explain to me how the resources of the PCs have changed from the pre-fight resources to the post-fight resources, as they enter the next encounter?  How exactly is it different from "4 goblins against a 10th level fighter" in actual effect?

Because, yeah, people are going to go "Cool!  I got to use my per encounter powers!" for a few months, I agree, before coming to the conclusion that they are actually wasting their time with such encounters because the outcome is both preordained and inconsequential.  

Six months to a year after the last 4e Core book is released, we'll be reading advice to handwave those encounters here, exactly as we do the 4 goblins vs. fighter 10 now.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> But these arent really resources. Not to players and not from a design perspective. The ability to walk isnt a resource. The ability to speak isnt a resource. Not in terms of how people generally think about it.




Bingo.

If the ability to swing a sword isn't considered a resource, because you can always do it, then the same will be true of the per-encounter abilities, sooner or later, once players figure it out.

As your examples demonstrate, only things where the use of them now significantly impacts the future ability to use the same things later are considered resources by players of the game.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, you are closing in on the point.
> 
> Please explain to me how the resources of the PCs have changed from the pre-fight resources to the post-fight resources, as they enter the next encounter?  How exactly is it different from "4 goblins against a 10th level fighter" in actual effect?



Mechanically, probably hit points.

In-game?
- the story has progressed
- ground is gained or lost
- the situation gets better or worse for the characters
- they managed or failed to rescue the innkeeper's daughter
- the enemy forces have been depleted of a unit
- the heroes proved their mettle to the townsfolk
- an important clue as to the location of the cleric's long-lost brother was whispered through the dying lips of one of the bandits
- a treasure map was found during the looting of the bodies
- the scuffle did or didn't alert the dragon to the party's whereabouts
- the delaying action of the rearguard frustrated the PCs' attempt to capture their king
- the PCs now must make a daring running slide under the portcullis before it shuts or be forced to scale the castle walls
- the heroes use their prowess to earn the respect of a might lord of mercenary warbands
- it's a trap and now the heroes find the _other_ forty goblins surrounding them with crossbows
- one of the cut-throats was carrying a piece of an artifact which sets into motion the scramble to reassemble the Last Mirror of the Witch-King
- the PCs accidentally killed their own countrymen in a late-night scuffle, leaving them in serious hot-water
- the wizard learns that his old master hired these goons to test his young apprentice's spellpower
- the wicked sorcerer was just setting the heroes up for a good ol' fashioned _delayed blast fireball_
- the changelings managed to hold the heroes long enough that they missed the lightning rail to Sharn
- the necromancer's ritual requires three hundred bodies to complete... and now he has four more
- it was a bluff, and the one important piece of treasure that the PCs were supposed to recover, the True Crest of the Royal Family, was handed off to a fence long ago
- great, now the inn smells like dead goblin, and the PCs have to clean it up at 3 in the morning


----------



## Raven Crowking

med stud said:
			
		

> Why should I stick to chess? I used it as an analogy to illustrate that tactics are important even in a system where you can expand all your resources with abandon. Next time you play chess, you pick up the board and put up all your pieces. I didn't make any further analogies with chess though I responded to some other analogy. So, "surely" I won't concede my analogy exactly because that I was after! In the sense that if all powers are per encouter you can use them all in a given encounter but it _still_ leaves room for tactics. That was my point and I won't concede it.





Fair enough, then.  We agree that tactics are important in a win/lose situation, regardless of whether or not you need to reserve resources.  However, that doesn't in any way, shape, or form imply that tactics without resources are interesting without that "win/lose" aspect.  

Your refusal to examine your analogy in light of this makes it a very poor analogy, IMHO.

RC


----------



## Imaro

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Mechanically, probably hit points.



Unless th cleric or "healer type" has a per encounter healing abilty.  Even if it only heals a small amount  but refreshes every minute it's going to make anything but the most damaging encounters negligible.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> In-game?
> - the story has progressed
> - ground is gained or lost
> - the situation gets better or worse for the characters
> - they managed or failed to rescue the innkeeper's daughter
> - the enemy forces have been depleted of a unit
> - the heroes proved their mettle to the townsfolk
> - an important clue as to the location of the cleric's long-lost brother was whispered through the dying lips of one of the bandits
> - a treasure map was found during the looting of the bodies
> - the scuffle did or didn't alert the dragon to the party's whereabouts
> - the delaying action of the rearguard frustrated the PCs' attempt to capture their king
> - the PCs now must make a daring running slide under the portcullis before it shuts or be forced to scale the castle walls
> - the heroes use their prowess to earn the respect of a might lord of mercenary warbands
> - it's a trap and now the heroes find the _other_ forty goblins surrounding them with crossbows
> - one of the cut-throats was carrying a piece of an artifact which sets into motion the scramble to reassemble the Last Mirror of the Witch-King
> - the PCs accidentally killed their own countrymen in a late-night scuffle, leaving them in serious hot-water
> - the wizard learns that his old master hired these goons to test his young apprentice's spellpower
> - the wicked sorcerer was just setting the heroes up for a good ol' fashioned _delayed blast fireball_
> - the changelings managed to hold the heroes long enough that they missed the lightning rail to Sharn
> - the necromancer's ritual requires three hundred bodies to complete... and now he has four more
> - it was a bluff, and the one important piece of treasure that the PCs were supposed to recover, the True Crest of the Royal Family, was handed off to a fence long ago
> - great, now the inn smells like dead goblin, and the PCs have to clean it up at 3 in the morning




This are all story resources, but let's for a minute suppose you are running a dungeon crawl...now what resources have changed?  I wouldn't even call these resouces but more advancing the plotline than anything else.  Resources are things that are expended to give your PC the ability to do a p[articular something.


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's actually the crux of the argument.
> 
> I would contend that there were more degrees in 1e, where even a goblin could potentially affect a 10th level fighter, than in 3e.




Are you kidding? A goblin in 1E had _less_ chance to affect a 10th level fighter because, if the fighter's AC was low enough, the goblin couldn't hit him even on a natural 20. Now, if there were ten goblins or so, the screwy overbearing rules might come into play, but just one? Even less of a threat than in 3E.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Please explain to me how the resources of the PCs have changed from the pre-fight resources to the post-fight resources, as they enter the next encounter? How exactly is it different from "4 goblins against a 10th level fighter" in actual effect?
> 
> Because, yeah, people are going to go "Cool! I got to use my per encounter powers!" for a few months, I agree, before coming to the conclusion that they are actually wasting their time with such encounters because the outcome is both preordained and inconsequential.




You're making the same mistake that gizmo33 did. The key time frame is not _after_ the battle, it's _during_ the battle. Per-encounter powers most definitely are not inconsequential in the middle of a battle. Indeed, if it's a tough battle, deciding when and how to use your per-encounter powers will be every bit as critical as deciding when and how to use your per-day powers is under the current rules. It's a far cry from the "10th level fighter vs. 4 goblins" situation where the player doesn't have to make any decisions at all.

I see no reason why a battle can't be fun, exciting, and potentially dangerous even if the players mostly or entirely use only per-encounter abilities to fight it.


----------



## Jackelope King

Imaro said:
			
		

> Unless th cleric or "healer type" has a per encounter healing abilty.  Even if it only heals a small amount  but refreshes every minute it's going to make anything but the most damaging encounters negligible.



Or perhaps the healer can bring everyone up to a "decent" level of health at any given time (maybe 50~75% or somesuch), but only up to full using "per day" spells. We don't know how this works, but in every single incarnation of D&D ever, and in nearly every hitpoint-based game, the big limit on how long someone could go has always been hit points, and how easily you could replenish them. I know that in Mearles' Iron Heroes, while you always could earn tokens to play with per-encounter abilities all day long, your hit point totals still needed attention. That was where the attrition was, and that's probably where it will still be.

(And I may be mistaken, but I thought that the healing reserve feat only let the cleric bring someone up to a certian percentage but not full health).



> This are all story resources, but let's for a minute suppose you are running a dungeon crawl...now what resources have changed?  I wouldn't even call these resouces but more advancing the plotline than anything else.  Resources are things that are expended to give your PC the ability to do a p[articular something.



First, why would I want to play a dungeon crawl? It's one type of fantasy roleplaying game, but not the end-all be-all. Certainly the game should _support_ this style, and support it well, but it shouldn't _restrict_ people to this style of gaming.

Resources are, quite simply, things which characters can use to make progress in the game. That's it. Resources needn't be something which deplete with use. Your _fireball_ spell is just as important a resource as the favor of the mayor of the town you just saved. What is wrong with considering the suggestions I listed resources?

**EDIT:** And I nearly forgot to address a point you made. Again, I believe that the designers are going to continue making hit points a _de facto_ per-day resource, making it increasingly difficult for the party to carry on at full health (possibly always able to continue decently, maybe at the oft-quoted 80% efficiency). It won't be impossible for the DM to throw more encounters at the party without slaughtering them just as it will still be possible for the PCs to be warry about continuing down to the next level of the dungeon when they're still battered and bruised from the current one.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

An interesting question is how the current"daily resource management" system affects the game experience for the players involved?

I certainly like planning my wizards spell well and using them precisely in the right moment. What I don't really enjoy are the kind of battles where I just sling some cheap Magic Missiles (usually at high levels, relying on Wands of Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer) or fire a Crossbow (low levels). The non-spellcasters usually enjoy these combats just as much as the ones where I get to sling my powerful spells. Essentially, a easy encounter in D&D 3.x means that the Wizard and Clerics hold back and just watch the fighters and rogues having fun. The difficult encounters means everyone is busy. 

A system which allows me to use most (but not always my most powerful) magic in combat in such battles would be a lot more fun to a spellcaster. The difference shouldn't be between a Magic Missile and a Cone of Cold, but the difference between Alter Self and Polymorph or Scorching Ray and Enlarged Fireball (couldn't think of a better 4th level spell, and I hope Enlarge is just +1 spell level)).

A system that generously mixes per day, per encounter and per round resources might be able to pull this off. 
Per Day spells: My highest level
Per Encounter spells: My second or third highest level spells
Per Round spells: Any spell below that.


----------



## Imaro

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Or perhaps the healer can bring everyone up to a "decent" level of health at any given time (maybe 50~75% or somesuch), but only up to full using "per day" spells. We don't know how this works, but in every single incarnation of D&D ever, and in nearly every hitpoint-based game, the big limit on how long someone could go has always been hit points, and how easily you could replenish them. I know that in Mearles' Iron Heroes, while you always could earn tokens to play with per-encounter abilities all day long, your hit point totals still needed attention. That was where the attrition was, and that's probably where it will still be.
> 
> (And I may be mistaken, but I thought that the healing reserve feat only let the cleric bring someone up to a certian percentage but not full health).




I wasn't adressing reserve feats specifically, as I have only heard of them and don't posses the book there in.  My main problem is this, if hp's can't be replenished at all, then all we're doing with per encounter abilities is upping the power level.  If they can be replenished up to a certain percentage then how is this different from per-day and encounter guidelines currently, except maybe in being more hampering.  I think of it like this

In the current system you start with 100% of your resources, now if my penultimate encounter is geared to a party with 60% of their resources I can accomplish how they get to that point.  Perhaps four encounters that take 0% of their resources then another that takes 10% and finally another that takes 20%(for a total of 6 encounters+ the finale).  This way if they play smart then they should face the final encounter with 70% of their resources...if they don't play smart from 60% to maybe 50%.  If I structuure the final encounter to challenge them at 30% of their resources then I can make more encounters or less but harder encounters.

With the players at 80% to 100% efficiency, I will always(if I want it to be challenging) structure the final encounter to challenge the PC's at 80 to 100% of their resources.  Which, and I am assuming here since I haven't seen the new encounter system, a much narrower range than what can be accomplished above.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> First, why would I want to play a dungeon crawl? It's one type of fantasy roleplaying game, but not the end-all be-all. Certainly the game should _support_ this style, and support it well, but it shouldn't _restrict_ people to this style of gaming.




Different strokes for different folks, but you're examplae assume no one will, I was just providing a counter argument.  Never said it should restrict people, but how do per-day or per-encounter resources impact your style(the resources you listed) in any way.  In fact I see it impacting the dynamics of a dungeon-crawl the most.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Resources are, quite simply, things which characters can use to make progress in the game. That's it. Resources needn't be something which deplete with use. Your _fireball_ spell is just as important a resource as the favor of the mayor of the town you just saved. What is wrong with considering the suggestions I listed resources?




No they don't *have* to be something that depletes with use.  the problem is that in no way do the resources we are discussin impact(help or hinder) you giving out your own "story resources".  In other words your resources are a negligible factor in what we are actually talking about.  I hand them out all the time in my game, but I've never been stopped or helped in doing so by how the PC's abiltites refresh.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> **EDIT:** And I nearly forgot to address a point you made. Again, I believe that the designers are going to continue making hit points a _de facto_ per-day resource, making it increasingly difficult for the party to carry on at full health (possibly always able to continue decently, maybe at the oft-quoted 80% efficiency). It won't be impossible for the DM to throw more encounters at the party without slaughtering them just as it will still be possible for the PCs to be warry about continuing down to the next level of the dungeon when they're still battered and bruised from the current one.




You see it's that always at 80% efficiency that makes me wonder.  At this level and let's say an average level of skill by your players, you're going to challenge them(and this is being generous) with encounters that force the party to use 65% to 100% of their resources.  I can't see an encounter being challenging below 65%(maybe 60) but definitely not below that for even moderately competent players(and let's not even go with powergamers or experienced players), while an encounter over 100% will probably TPK a moderately competent player.  This is all IMHO of course.


----------



## Imaro

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> An interesting question is how the current"daily resource management" system affects the game experience for the players involved?
> 
> I certainly like planning my wizards spell well and using them precisely in the right moment. What I don't really enjoy are the kind of battles where I just sling some cheap Magic Missiles (usually at high levels, relying on Wands of Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer) or fire a Crossbow (low levels). The non-spellcasters usually enjoy these combats just as much as the ones where I get to sling my powerful spells. Essentially, a easy encounter in D&D 3.x means that the Wizard and Clerics hold back and just watch the fighters and rogues having fun. The difficult encounters means everyone is busy.
> 
> A system which allows me to use most (but not always my most powerful) magic in combat in such battles would be a lot more fun to a spellcaster. The difference shouldn't be between a Magic Missile and a Cone of Cold, but the difference between Alter Self and Polymorph or Scorching Ray and Enlarged Fireball (couldn't think of a better 4th level spell, and I hope Enlarge is just +1 spell level)).
> 
> A system that generously mixes per day, per encounter and per round resources might be able to pull this off.
> Per Day spells: My highest level
> Per Encounter spells: My second or third highest level spells
> Per Round spells: Any spell below that.





One thing I will be curious about concerning this new paradigm in design...is how, exactly the designer's plan to balance the Wizard(and to a lesser extent the other spellcasters) versatility.  I always thought this was the fact that other classes shined in the type of situations you sight above.  I mean a fighter will never ba able to do the type of things  that spells such as polymorph, wish, fly, etc. allow a wizard to do.  So yeah, I wonder how they will balance this without spellcasters again being more powerful at higher levels.


----------



## Jackelope King

Imaro said:
			
		

> I wasn't adressing reserve feats specifically, as I have only heard of them and don't posses the book there in.  My main problem is this, if hp's can't be replenished at all, then all we're doing with per encounter abilities is upping the power level.  If they can be replenished up to a certain percentage then how is this different from per-day and encounter guidelines currently, except maybe in being more hampering.  I think of it like this
> 
> In the current system you start with 100% of your resources, now if my penultimate encounter is geared to a party with 60% of their resources I can accomplish how they get to that point.  Perhaps four encounters that take 0% of their resources then another that takes 10% and finally another that takes 20%(for a total of 6 encounters+ the finale).  This way if they play smart then they should face the final encounter with 70% of their resources...if they don't play smart from 60% to maybe 50%.  If I structuure the final encounter to challenge them at 30% of their resources then I can make more encounters or less but harder encounters.
> 
> With the players at 80% to 100% efficiency, I will always(if I want it to be challenging) structure the final encounter to challenge the PC's at 80 to 100% of their resources.  Which, and I am assuming here since I haven't seen the new encounter system, a much narrower range than what can be accomplished above.



Ah, but what you describe requires a pretty in-depth knowledge of your group that only really experienced DMs have (and my hat's off to you for managing it! Kudos!). You know their abilities and resources inside-and-out. Not every group has a DM like this.

But what your'e doing is assuming attrition, which the current system assumes and indeed enforces. It works wonderfully for what you describe. Fantastically. But, as I've said, there are other styles it doesn't work for.



> Different strokes for different folks, but you're examplae assume no one will, I was just providing a counter argument.  Never said it should restrict people, but how do per-day or per-encounter resources impact your style(the resources you listed) in any way.  In fact I see it impacting the dynamics of a dungeon-crawl the most.



Per-day resources mean that my players are more likely to make camp or find an inn than they are to head off to continue the adventure. Per-encounter resource management means that it is _much_ easier to predict the heroes' abilities at any given point in the game. The paladin will always have one smite, the barbarian will be able to rage, and the wizard will have between one and three fireballs, as well as his magic bolt every round. Easy peasy. It also means that I can have a day with one encounter just as easily as I can have a day with ten and it won't change the in-party balance. Currently, if I run fewer than four encounters, the game tends to favor spellcasters. If I run more than four encounters, it means that the non-casters get more spotlight time.




> No they don't *have* to be something that depletes with use.  the problem is that in no way do the resources we are discussin impact(help or hinder) you giving out your own "story resources".  In other words your resources are a negligible factor in what we are actually talking about.  I hand them out all the time in my game, but I've never been stopped or helped in doing so by how the PC's abiltites refresh.



I wasn't intending them to be such. RC postulated that a per-encounter system means that encounters must, by default, be all-or-nothing to be meaningful. I provided a counterpoint whereby even cakewalk encounters have meaning. That's all.




> You see it's that always at 80% efficiency that makes me wonder.  At this level and let's say an average level of skill by your players, you're going to challenge them(and this is being generous) with encounters that force the party to use 65% to 100% of their resources.  I can't see an encounter being challenging below 65%(maybe 60) but definitely not below that for even moderately competent players(and let's not even go with powergamers or experienced players), while an encounter over 100% will probably TPK a moderately competent player.  This is all IMHO of course.



And your speculation does somewhat ignore what I said above: there's more at stake in an encounter than "how many points did the heroes spend to overcome it". There are in-character concerns and consequences. One of the first things I learned when I started running a game like _Mutants & Masterminds_, where a single healer will all but garuntee the group going in to every fight at full power, was that there were many more ways to challenge a group than just the "war of attrition". There's nothing wrong with a cakewalk or even a real meat-grinder that pushes the heroes to their limits, so long as it keeps the game fun and moving along in the right direction.

And indeed, a per-encounter resource system means that the "sweet spot" for the DM to aim for to actually peg those real meat-grinder, edge-of-your-seat-will-we-make-it encounters is so, so, so much easier. I can pretty much eyeball how well the PCs will fare against a particular challenge in M&M with about +/- 10% accuracy (including those occassional lucky crits). If D&D allowed a more constant (or at least steady) pool of resources to the PCs, this would help me immensely in designing interesting encounters.


----------



## Imaro

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I wasn't intending them to be such. RC postulated that a per-encounter system means that encounters must, by default, be all-or-nothing to be meaningful. I provided a counterpoint whereby even cakewalk encounters have meaning. That's all.




That's all well and good, but I think he means in a mechanical sense.  I mean the whole "if we don't pull this off the princess will be kidnapped" meaningful loses alot of it's punch when you can pull out everything and the kitchen sink to accomplish it.  You then run into once again, making it a 80%-100& resource depletion encounter(which certainly infers a TPK as a consequence of loosing) to give it that punch.




			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And your speculation does somewhat ignore what I said above: there's more at stake in an encounter than "how many points did the heroes spend to overcome it". There are in-character concerns and consequences. One of the first things I learned when I started running a game like _Mutants & Masterminds_, where a single healer will all but garuntee the group going in to every fight at full power, was that there were many more ways to challenge a group than just the "war of attrition". There's nothing wrong with a cakewalk or even a real meat-grinder that pushes the heroes to their limits, so long as it keeps the game fun and moving along in the right direction.




Yet if the encounter is a given(once again I estimate a lower than 65% resource depletion) you know what the end mechanical outcome will be majority of the time, thus you know what effect, as far as "story resources" you will achieve from it.  There's a lack of risk/reward and in a per-day encounter this type of reward is just as effective at keeping the PC's going.  In other words I see nothing that makes per-encounter abilities superior to implementing what you propose here.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And indeed, a per-encounter resource system means that the "sweet spot" for the DM to aim for to actually peg those real meat-grinder, edge-of-your-seat-will-we-make-it encounters is so, so, so much easier. I can pretty much eyeball how well the PCs will fare against a particular challenge in M&M with about +/- 10% accuracy (including those occassional lucky crits). If D&D allowed a more constant (or at least steady) pool of resources to the PCs, this would help me immensely in designing interesting encounters.




I find this is the case with almost any game once you've taken the time to familiarize yourself with it and your players...not to mention the fact that an encounter can be adjusted on the fly.  I think the fact that there aren't alot of steady resources in the hands of the PC's in D&D promotes longterm thought about consequences and strategy, as well as a sense of risk that is more satisfying than being able to blast/smite/rage every combat.  YMMV of course.


----------



## Jackelope King

The assumption which you seem to be working under is that a resource-management system must, in order to be effective and fun, include attrition over the course of a day.

I disagree. From my experience with other games, this is simply not the case. I've had enormous fun playing and running _Mutants & Masterminds_ and _Iron Heroes_, and both systems minimize the per-day resource management ideal and the concept of attrition.

What the system we are currently speculating about seems to imply is that the basic unit of measurement for resource management is shifting from the macro-management of the "day" to the micro-management of the "round". Under this model, the question isn't, "Do I use my fireball now or save it for another fight?" Instead, it's, "Do I throw my fireball this round and take out the goblins or do I hit the BBEG with a lightning bolt?" The fundamental resource in the game becomes the actions you have available to you (which IH did a wonderful job with using its tokens system... you could spend actions to get tokes, which you could spend in later rounds to activate abilities).

From what you describe, you tend to see encounters as "speed-bumps". You need to put X number of encounters in the way of the heroes in a given adenture not because the adventure calls for those fights in particular, but because the PCs need to suffer the attrition that those encounters will impose for the adventure to function correctly. You might have planned a heroic battle over a chasm on a swaying rope bridge and maybe a terrific encounter where the heroes encounter their first terrifying medusa before they square off with the dragon, but you then decide you need to go back and insert another encounter before the dragon lest that fight be too easy.

The upside to this viewpoint is that it promotes a very tactical sort of resource management. After each battle, the heroes need to take stock of what they have left and decide if they can go on or if they need to rest and heal. If you enjoy this sort of thing, then the system works wonderfully for that. I would still say it has difficulties in handling different degrees of resource management specifically because it's built around the 4-encounter per day system, but in the scheme of things, this is a minor point.

The downside is that you are sometimes forced to introduce challenges that are there _only_ to cost resources, as both yourself and RC have described. Certainly this isn't the majority of encounters, but they're a sort of "necessary evil" for you to get the PCs where you want them before the next encounter. I know this from personal experience. While designing adventures, I sometimes find myself adding an extra fight as an afterthought if only to make the final fight that much more of a challenging. They serve no other purpose than to chew up resources.

And I don't find that to be good design. RC talks about what makes an encounter important in terms of what resources it costs. I think about encounters as important in terms of how they move the game forward. If attrition as a _de facto_ requirement is reduced or removed from the game, then that's one less thing for me to worry about when designing an adventure. I'd rather make every encounter one that's exciting and moves the game forward as opposed to having to throw speed-bumps at the PCs to make sure that they're just the right sort of tired when they reach the end of the adventure.

Long-term resource management is one approach. So is short-term round-based resource management. I find that the latter better promotes the sort of games I want to play and run because they are less-likely to enforce artificial, rules-based restrictions on pacing. I also feel that the latter is superior because it allows for different types of pacing, but would join with you in agreeing that the per-day model does better allow for long-term resource management better than this model.

But personally, I value good pacing and meaningful, exciting encounters over long-term resource management. I like an RPG to run more like an adventure than a detatched, tactical game. This is a personal preference and nothing more, but I am pleased to see that this is one which WotC is recognizing as a valid one alongside their "classic" model of long-term resource management.

And by the way, even under a per-encounter model, it's still not too difficult to add attrition. Fatigue rules are a wonderful thing


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Imaro said:
			
		

> One thing I will be curious about concerning this new paradigm in design...is how, exactly the designer's plan to balance the Wizard(and to a lesser extent the other spellcasters) versatility.  I always thought this was the fact that other classes shined in the type of situations you sight above.  I mean a fighter will never ba able to do the type of things  that spells such as polymorph, wish, fly, etc. allow a wizard to do.  So yeah, I wonder how they will balance this without spellcasters again being more powerful at higher levels.



That's an interesting question. I would assume that's something the Designers are trying to address with the new mechanics for spellcasting, including the indicated 25+ levels of spells. The Book of Nine Swords might also give some interesting ideas on what they are planning to give the "martial" characters to grant them greater versatility. 

It might be important to keep in mind that while spells are often quite impressive in the versatility department, mundane skill uses are not to discounted. A wizard might be able to make himself invisible, but a Rogue can sneak well enough that he doesn't need the spell (and is also not hampered by Detect Magic/Invisibility spells). A Fighter doesn't need fly to overcome a river or a cliff. There are some spells but that are truely beyond mundane means - flying is still superior to climbing during a combat, and Dimension Door or Teleport will certainly be unmatched by any other skill. But then, this might be just the advantage the wizards has for not being able to go toe-to-toe with a Dragon...

The primary concern is probably still wether things stay balanced during combat. But I agree it would be a very good idea to ensure that classes stay balanced outside of combat, too. Which means that even in an investigative heavy adventure, fighters get to do something and don't have to leave everything to the Diviners and Rogues or Bards. Even more so when a "social challenge" system has been established. 
I think there are some indications that they are seeing these issues (I specifically remember the thing about traps being full-fledged encounters using all the party members, instead of just being the Rogue rolling 2-3 dice).



> You see it's that always at 80% efficiency that makes me wonder. At this level and let's say an average level of skill by your players, you're going to challenge them(and this is being generous) with encounters that force the party to use 65% to 100% of their resources. I can't see an encounter being challenging below 65%(maybe 60) but definitely not below that for even moderately competent players(and let's not even go with powergamers or experienced players), while an encounter over 100% will probably TPK a moderately competent player. This is all IMHO of course.



Just some observations first that are not _that_ important here: 
Under the current system, an encounter that gives the characters a 50 % chance to survive/succeed is an encounter with a Encounter Level equal to Party Level +4. Which means that on average, this will consume 50 % of the parties resources (which, worst case scenario, could be two full characters in the standard 4 player group!). It can be more, it can be less. I tend to think if no character died, you might actually have been below 50 %. 
I tend to think the systems expectation for "average" might be a bit off, but maybe it doesn't account for good tactics of experienced players. 

In encounters were Wizards and Clerics are usually holding back with spells (EL around PL), the expectation is that this requires 25 % of the parties resources. In such encounters, I think the estimation might be a bit farther off then described above, simply for the existence of Wands of Cure Light Wounds. At medium to high levels, the resources they require seem considerable less than what the systems expects (I assume that's because it is based on spells used for healing, or just the pure hit point cost, not on the wand cost formula)

Another thing is to keep in mind: 
Most resources characters have cannot actually be spend within a single encounter. 
Hitpoints burn through pretty fast in 3.x, but blowing out all your spells takes a lot of time at higher levels. If an average combat lasts 5 rounds, you usually won't get out more than 5 spells per round. So, even if you have 100 % of your powers available doesn't mean you get to use 100 % of them. Using a resource usually costs a new one that you have to keep track off only during the encounter: Actions. You only have a limited amount of them per turn, and the tactical component is to decide when do you use which of your other resources together with this one. 

A think I just noticed: The 10 minute adventure day might also be result of aspects like quicken spell and more swift spells. These spells are balanced by the assumption that their effects are lessened (Swift Spells usually) or they cost more (Quicken Spell). On a pure power level, this is in fact the case, I think. But on the resource management side, they mean that you can spend more of your resources during an encounter. But since your resources do not replenish after the encounter, casters are out of spells even earlier.


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Bingo.
> 
> If the ability to swing a sword isn't considered a resource, because you can always do it, then the same will be true of the per-encounter abilities, sooner or later, once players figure it out.
> 
> As your examples demonstrate, only things where the use of them now significantly impacts the future ability to use the same things later are considered resources by players of the game.





  Your missing a big difference that I and others have already brought up.

A Fighter can ALWAYS swing a sword.

  Per encounter abilities are just that. Per encounter. Once used in an encounter, they can't be used again until the next encounter.

  Previously in D&D everything was either at will and non-expendable (fighter swinging a sword) or per day (pretty much everything else.)

  The only, only difference that there is going to be, that we know of at this point is that there will be a third catagory of things that fall between these two...their use not tied to daily rest, but not unlimited either.


----------



## Merlion

Imaro said:
			
		

> Unless th cleric or "healer type" has a per encounter healing abilty.  Even if it only heals a small amount  but refreshes every minute it's going to make anything but the most damaging encounters negligible.
> .





  And at this point, we DONT KNOW if this is the case or not, which goes back to my whole issue with people coming to total conclusions based on whats really not much information...





> This are all story resources, but let's for a minute suppose you are running a dungeon crawl...now what resources have changed?





  First off, I have a strong feeling that 4e will move away from the whole being built around dungeon crawls thing, since despite the name D&D has I think already de emphasized this quite a bit.

  And, once again...managing resources from one encounter to the next isnt the only kind of resource management. Such will still exist, just as Vancian spellcasting will still exist, but it will no longer be the sole concern.


----------



## Merlion

Imaro said:
			
		

> One thing I will be curious about concerning this new paradigm in design...is how, exactly the designer's plan to balance the Wizard(and to a lesser extent the other spellcasters) versatility.  I always thought this was the fact that other classes shined in the type of situations you sight above.  I mean a fighter will never ba able to do the type of things  that spells such as polymorph, wish, fly, etc. allow a wizard to do.  So yeah, I wonder how they will balance this without spellcasters again being more powerful at higher levels.





  Most likely by having those sorts of spells be very much like the are now.


I personally dont think there are going to be per encounter or at will SPELLS. I think Wizards will have a few per encounter and per day magical ABILITIES probably either supernatural or spell like. They may well be linked to the prepared spells, in a manner similar to the Reserve feats, but I dont see them getting things like Polymorph or Fly or the like at an at-will level. And if they get them at a per-encounter level it will probably be less versatile, more specific versions of the effects.


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> You're making the same mistake that gizmo33 did. The key time frame is not _after_ the battle, it's _during_ the battle.




I find this to be unsubstantiated.  I could just as easily say "the key time frame" is something else, provide no actual context for it.  The only thing I'll say in defending the idea that the "after battle" time frame is more significant is that it lasts longer, and also is subject to much greater uncertainties.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Per-encounter powers most definitely are not inconsequential in the middle of a battle. Indeed, if it's a tough battle, deciding when and how to use your per-encounter powers will be every bit as critical as deciding when and how to use your per-day powers is under the current rules.




_If_ it's a tough battle??  I've made this point many times and it keeps getting ignored:  it's really ONLY if it's a tough battle.  And so really this is just coming down to a response of "well, every combat I'll make sure that my players are agonizing over their per-encounter resource usage" which is the same thing as saying you'll make all your encounters have a significant chance of PC death associated with them (and then maybe fudge it away the first few times).  

In any case IIRC Imaro is also making the same mistake as RC and I are - he describes it in his experiences with the Star Wars saga system earlier in the thread.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> I see no reason why a battle can't be fun, exciting, and potentially dangerous even if the players mostly or entirely use only per-encounter abilities to fight it.




Me neither, this seems to me to be beside the point that we've been making.  Make sure every encounter carries with it a measurable chance of killing one or more of the PCs.  Just come out and admit that this is the consequence of the "per-encounter" design and you won't hear much objection from me.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I find this to be unsubstantiated.  I could just as easily say "the key time frame" is something else, provide no actual context for it.  The only thing I'll say in defending the idea that the "after battle" time frame is more significant is that it lasts longer, and also is subject to much greater uncertainties.
> 
> 
> 
> _If_ it's a tough battle??  I've made this point many times and it keeps getting ignored:  it's really ONLY if it's a tough battle.  And so really this is just coming down to a response of "well, every combat I'll make sure that my players are agonizing over their per-encounter resource usage" which is the same thing as saying you'll make all your encounters have a significant chance of PC death associated with them (and then maybe fudge it away the first few times).
> 
> In any case IIRC Imaro is also making the same mistake as RC and I are - he describes it in his experiences with the Star Wars saga system earlier in the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Me neither, this seems to me to be beside the point that we've been making.  Make sure every encounter carries with it a measurable chance of killing one or more of the PCs.  Just come out and admit that this is the consequence of the "per-encounter" design and you won't hear much objection from me.





  No one is going to "admit" that, because thats a matter of perception and taste, and that conclusion is only according to yours.


----------



## Victim

I'll admit it, in so far as we replace kill with incapacitate.  It's already the case at high levels in DnD, and seemed to be true in saga as well.  Of course, SW was less lethal since attacks have to drop a PC 0 AND exceed their damage threshold to kill instead of KO.  Plus PCs can spend their force points (action points) to avoid death when those powerful hits occur.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> For example, suppose a player decides one motivation for his character is to "uphold my late father's honour" and this includes wielding his father's sword. That PC might receive a bonus of +1 dice of damage whenever pursuing this goal. The player then has an incentive to pursue the theme, and does not have to trade off that goal against the prospect that the +1 greatsword is a tactically superior choice to his father's cutlass.




This reminds me of the Pendragon system IIRC, where you can add bonuses to actions if they deal with certain "passions" (or whatever they're called, I vaguely remember) that have been chosen for your character.  

The idea you're talking about is interesting but I don't find it to conflict much with the resource situation.  It's a question of how powerful you want story elements to be vs. common sense (not that they'll always conflict, but sometimes they will).  Now you can design your campaign/rules/etc. to say that every mortal has some innate psychic ability that is greater than magic items, so using your father's cutless is more powerful than the +1 sword.

Still, whatever rules you make will still just create a new set of tatical considerations.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> No one is going to "admit" that, because thats a matter of perception and taste, and that conclusion is only according to yours.




Doesn't seem like perception and taste to me.  It seems like it's at the root of every response to this topic.  Of course it's always phrased as an "if you make the encounter deadly enough that the PCs have to worry about their ability usage on a round per round basis..."  

So you're saying that you don't, right?  So we can continue to use the 4 goblin vs. 10th level fighter situation as an example?  Something really seems to be missing in what you're saying.  Yes, I suppose that is a matter of perception, hmmm.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Doesn't seem like perception and taste to me.  It seems like it's at the root of every response to this topic.  Of course it's always phrased as an "if you make the encounter deadly enough that the PCs have to worry about their ability usage on a round per round basis..."
> 
> So you're saying that you don't, right?  So we can continue to use the 4 goblin vs. 10th level fighter situation as an example?  Something really seems to be missing in what you're saying.  Yes, I suppose that is a matter of perception, hmmm.






  What level and type of resource management a person enjoys, and what they consider a high risk level or a difficult battle is in the end a matter of perception and opinion.

  Your not arguing the balance of these changes, your just saying you think they will rain on your particular playstyle. I'm not even so sure about that, but those things in the end are a matter of preference.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> What level and type of resource management a person enjoys, and what they consider a high risk level or a difficult battle is in the end a matter of perception and opinion.




That is true but not what I've been arguing about.  I'm arguing about some of the consequences of the rule changes, not so much whether those consequences are good or bad, although I think it's obvious how I feel.  And you're right, but if it's really a matter of you finding the consequences tolerable/preferable, then why argue about the logic of reaching them?  Basically what Wyatt says he wants to fix in the game will not be fixed by many of things that people are proposing, although it's such a moving target that it's hard for me to generalize everything that's been said to support the "per-encounter" game.


----------



## Imaro

Merlion said:
			
		

> What level and type of resource management a person enjoys, and what they consider a high risk level or a difficult battle is in the end a matter of perception and opinion.
> 
> Your not arguing the balance of these changes, your just saying you think they will rain on your particular playstyle. I'm not even so sure about that, but those things in the end are a matter of preference.




I think the above is true, but a baseline has to be considered for practical purposes.  If the above argument holds then reward/risk/power etc. is all subjective and the so called balance of the game need not even be a considerstion.  I think it's safe to say *most* enworlders would agree one goblin is not a challenge for a group of 4 PC's...*some* might argue the reverse, yet to have any meaningful discussion at least a broad standard needs to exsist.  That standard, since it needs to be neutral or at least commonly accepted, is the CR/EL system.  No, I'm not saying it's perfect, but nothing in life is.

Well here's a totally different concern as far as "balance" goes...By opening up either new or previous abilities as per-encounter it creates a new additional axis upon which later classes, monsters, splats and additions must be balanced, thus producing a higher likelihood of imbalance in the game.  Or is this also an invalid concern?


----------



## pemerton

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The 10 minute adventure day might also be result of aspects like quicken spell and more swift spells. These spells are balanced by the assumption that their effects are lessened (Swift Spells usually) or they cost more (Quicken Spell). On a pure power level, this is in fact the case, I think. But on the resource management side, they mean that you can spend more of your resources during an encounter. But since your resources do not replenish after the encounter, casters are out of spells even earlier.



That is almost certainly true. I GM Rolemaster, which has a PP system for spell-casting, and the more PPs per round that a PC spellcaster can spend, the more s/he does, because more (and more powerful) actions = greater chance of victory.

And while the PP system does answer some of Merlion's complaints relating to the flavour of magic, it does nothing to eliminate the 10-minute day sybndrome.

An interesting variant on the RM rules, which I have not GMed yet, is HARP. In HARP higher level attack spells, although having more powerful effects if they succeed, actually have a reduced, rather than an increased, chance of success. This therefore suggests a type of negative feedback system, in which it will not always be rational to spend the most number of PPs possible in a round. It is possible, therefore, that HARP avoids the 10-minute day syndrome (at least to some extent).


----------



## pemerton

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> What the system we are currently speculating about seems to imply is that the basic unit of measurement for resource management is shifting from the macro-management of the "day" to the micro-management of the "round".
> 
> <snip interesting discussion>
> 
> Long-term resource management is one approach. So is short-term round-based resource management. I find that the latter better promotes the sort of games I want to play and run because they are less-likely to enforce artificial, rules-based restrictions on pacing.






			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> _If_ it's a tough battle??  I've made this point many times and it keeps getting ignored:  it's really ONLY if it's a tough battle.  And so really this is just coming down to a response of "well, every combat I'll make sure that my players are agonizing over their per-encounter resource usage" which is the same thing as saying you'll make all your encounters have a significant chance of PC death associated with them (and then maybe fudge it away the first few times).




Jackelope King, that's a very clear explanation of the change in focus that per-encounter resources will bring.

Gizmo33, that's a very clear statement of what you take the implications of that change in focus to be - I take it (from your earlier posts) that the thought is that no rational player will care about how they manage their per-encounter resources if nothing turns on good or poor  management of them (because the encounter poses no real threat even if there is a poorly-managed deployment of resources).

I'm not sure I entirely agree - some players like to optimise their tactics for the sake of it, even when sub-optimal tactics could still deliver a win. And you also seem to be excluding the possibility that there can be other implications of sub-optimal tactical choices, such as "If the combat lasts longer than X rounds, unhappy event Y comes about."

Still, the overall desire to have more dramatic combats, in the sense of threatening PC death, does seem to be there in James Wyatt's post, so even if you are on the whole correct this is probably not going to be taken as an objection to the per-encounter approach.


----------



## Hussar

There is a way to do /round resources that still have /day implications.  The Binder is a good example of this.  You pick a suite of abilities for the day.  Yes, in that day, you can do whatever your vestige lets you do, all day long.  However, you may pick a vestige that is less useful on any given day (feats can mitigate this choice).  

Thus, you still have /day resource management - "Which suite of abilities do I choose today" while not having to worry about running out of abilities in 10 minutes.


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The idea you're talking about is interesting but I don't find it to conflict much with the resource situation.  It's a question of how powerful you want story elements to be vs. common sense (not that they'll always conflict, but sometimes they will).  Now you can design your campaign/rules/etc. to say that every mortal has some innate psychic ability that is greater than magic items, so using your father's cutless is more powerful than the +1 sword.



I don't see that "common sense" or "psychic ability" comes into it. The sort of mechanics I'm talking about are intended to be _purely metagame_, in the sense that they do not model anything in the gameworld. The reason the PC's ancestral sword gives a +1 dice bonus is not for any in-game reason, but because the player, who is outside the gameworld, has decided that this issue of ancestry is one of the narrative theme's s/he wants to explore in her play.



> Still, whatever rules you make will still just create a new set of tatical considerations.



Perhaps, but they will not necessarily be resource-management considerations, for the reasons I gave in my earlier post above. If the rules allow the PCs to generate the relevant thematic benefit more or less at will (as they do, for example, in TRoS) then there is no resource management required. Rather, the question a player has to answer is "What theme do I want to explore?" Once that question is answered, the mechanics of the game support the player's exploration of that theme through his/her PC's actions (eg by giving bonus dice, or Fate Points that can only be expended while pursuing the chosen theme, or whatever).


----------



## gizmo33

Hussar said:
			
		

> Thus, you still have /day resource management - "Which suite of abilities do I choose today" while not having to worry about running out of abilities in 10 minutes.




I think abilities means useful abilities in this case.  So, for example, if someone chooses "fire spells at will" as their ability for that day, and then realizes 2 encounters into the adventure that the whole evil castle is staffed by fire-resistant creatures, then they'll leave the castle and find a place to camp in order to choose different spells.  In that way, this type of resource management would have the same effect as the other.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I find this to be unsubstantiated.  I could just as easily say "the key time frame" is something else, provide no actual context for it.  The only thing I'll say in defending the idea that the "after battle" time frame is more significant is that it lasts longer, and also is subject to much greater uncertainties.




The context is the per-encounter abilities that we're talking about. This makes the battle itself the key time frame with respect to those abilities.

Suppose we were talking about 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition's per-day abilities. Well, the use of those abilities doesn't impact the next day or any of the days afterward (call it the "after day" time frame). And I could just as easily say that the "after day" time frame is more significant because it lasts longer and is also subject to much greater uncertainties.

But that doesn't change the fact that the key time frame for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition's per-day abilities is the given day on which they're used. Just as the key time frame for 4E's per-encounter abilities is the given encounter in which they're used.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> _If_ it's a tough battle??  I've made this point many times and it keeps getting ignored:  it's really ONLY if it's a tough battle.  And so really this is just coming down to a response of "well, every combat I'll make sure that my players are agonizing over their per-encounter resource usage" which is the same thing as saying you'll make all your encounters have a significant chance of PC death associated with them (and then maybe fudge it away the first few times).




Well, depending on how they're implemented, the introduction of action points may mitigate the risk of PC death to some degree.

And pmerton already pointed out that there can be other consequences to poor tactical choices on the part of the PCs. I know from experience that, even if a battle doesn't start out as a life-or-death situation for the PCs, bad tactical decisions can turn it into one _very_ quickly.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Me neither, this seems to me to be beside the point that we've been making.




The person I was responding to said that any 4E fight which didn't impact the PCs post-fight resources was inconsequential and would probably just end up being handwaved through. I see no reason to believe that that will be the case.


----------



## Hussar

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think abilities means useful abilities in this case.  So, for example, if someone chooses "fire spells at will" as their ability for that day, and then realizes 2 encounters into the adventure that the whole evil castle is staffed by fire-resistant creatures, then they'll leave the castle and find a place to camp in order to choose different spells.  In that way, this type of resource management would have the same effect as the other.




True.  But, after that day of rest, you can continue on all week long.  Previously, you'd still have to rest each and every day to get your spells back.  This way, once you find a tactic that works, you can continue with that tactic indefinitely.

Also, TOM introduces feats which allow you to switch your "suite" during the day, although it imposes some penalties for doing so.  Perhaps a similar mechanic could be used for casters.  You can pick Suite A and it works all day long as advertised.  But, if you find that Suite A is ill suited, then you can switch to Suite B but suffer penalties for the rest of the day.  Not crippling penalties, because that would just force PC's to camp again.  But, penalties that are just strong enough to be felt, but, not too strong.

And, yeah, that's a fine line to walk.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> Once that question is answered, the mechanics of the game support the player's exploration of that theme through his/her PC's actions (eg by giving bonus dice, or Fate Points that can only be expended while pursuing the chosen theme, or whatever).




Ok, I think I see what you're describing now.  You are describing something that is very much in the "story-teller" style of gaming.  It's not my particular style, but I at least see a strong degree of consistency between the rules you favor and the outcome they are designed to produce.  This is not the case with the "per-encounter" stuff on this thread IMO.

BTW - I read Monte's comments on the DnD spell system on the link that you posted and I find it strangely as paradoxical as a lot of the comments on this thread.  He defines certain types of adversity (like running out of resources) as "unfun" without giving me a clear sense of how distinguishes between "fun" and "unfun" adversity.  He talks about how resting to recover resources can interfere with the ongoing "plot" of the adventure - was "plot" really covered in the 3E DMG as a major consideration for adventure design?  When did DnD become a story-teller game, I wonder?  

But then he turns around and says something like "but daily resource management is a cool part of the game and something I wish all character classes had".  The change I found to be startling and weird.  Why in the world would he say resource management is unfun and that it interferes with some important aspect of the game but then turn around and say it's a good thing?  

Anyway, it didn't make any sense to me, probably because he really didn't explain his statements with any substance.  Most of his statements were made, AFAICT, with a sort of assumption that the reader would share his preferences.  If that's not it, I'm stumped.


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> Suppose we were talking about 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition's per-day abilities. Well, the use of those abilities doesn't impact the next day or any of the days afterward (call it the "after day" time frame). And I could just as easily say that the "after day" time frame is more significant because it lasts longer and is also subject to much greater uncertainties.




I see.  If I understand you now, what you're saying seems pretty logical - the interval of time in which the PCs regain resources is the key time frame.   My comments could equally be understood in the context of "what happens when you make 'the encounter' they key time frame in a DnD game".



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Well, depending on how they're implemented, the introduction of action points may mitigate the risk of PC death to some degree.




Implementing mitigating factors for failure simply changes the perception of risk (which is part of the problem with the "exclusive per-encounter abilities" scheme).  To say that an encounter is interesting because it proposes a chance of death, and then to redefine death as something that's recoverable ultimately changes nothing.  Now PCs are leaving the dungeon after 15 minutes because they need to recover action points, or they're not returning at all because action points are a lifetime resource, or you make action points an encounter-level resource to solve the problem.  

Now you could probably say something like "but an encounter can be perceived as being dangerous without PCs having to use action points", which leads round about to another frequent topic in this debate, which is my final point on this post.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> And pmerton already pointed out that there can be other consequences to poor tactical choices on the part of the PCs. I know from experience that, even if a battle doesn't start out as a life-or-death situation for the PCs, bad tactical decisions can turn it into one _very_ quickly.




I give my players some credit for being reasonably intelligent people.  That means if they make a tactical mistake that makes the encounter deadly, that chance of a mistake would be a reasonable part in the overall assessment of the difficulty of the encounter.  In other words, IMO there's no such thing as an easy encounter that's suddenly deadly because of a tactical decision - I would just simply call that a tough encounter.  Or look at it this way:  playing a chess master is probably really easy until you make a tactical mistake, and then you lose.  I think it's equivocation to call playing a chess master anything other than tough.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> The person I was responding to said that any 4E fight which didn't impact the PCs post-fight resources was inconsequential and would probably just end up being handwaved through. I see no reason to believe that that will be the case.




I've been one of those people saying that.  Other than "no" I haven't seen much of a reason why we're wrong on this.  The evidence for my position exists in the way people currently assess risk in DnD, which is the reason that people consider the "4 goblins vs. 10th level fighter" encounter to be not worth playing - and previous posts have tried to make the comparison in detail.  The factors that make this so seem to not change based on the rule changes proposed for 4E, yet some people claim that, but so far I haven't seen any reason for it.


----------



## gizmo33

Hussar said:
			
		

> And, yeah, that's a fine line to walk.




Sure is!    

If I'm a player in the game, then I make the change to my abilities.  It either causes an insignificant penalty, in which case I ignore it so who cares.  Or, it causes a significant one in which case I walk outside the dungeon and camp with no consequence.  Or I camp, and there is a consequence in which case one has to wonder what the problem was to begin with.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I've been one of those people saying that.  Other than "no" I haven't seen much of a reason why we're wrong on this.  The evidence for my position exists in the way people currently assess risk in DnD, which is the reason that people consider the "4 goblins vs. 10th level fighter" encounter to be not worth playing - and previous posts have tried to make the comparison in detail.  The factors that make this so seem to not change based on the rule changes proposed for 4E, yet some people claim that, but so far I haven't seen any reason for it.




The reason is this - in 4E, the inclusion of per-encounter abilities allows the PCs to face far more significant threats without tapping into their daily resources. In 3E (and all previous editions of D&D), any significant threat required the PCs to use daily resources because _daily resources were the only resources available for them to use._ The addition of encounter-level resources changes this paradigm.

I don't know how to put it any more simply than that. That is the reason that things will be different in 4E (exactly _how_ different, of course, remains to be seen). You are of course free to disagree with this reason, but that does not mean that the reason has not been provided to you.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> BTW - I read Monte's comments on the DnD spell system on the link that you posted and I find it strangely as paradoxical as a lot of the comments on this thread.  He defines certain types of adversity (like running out of resources) as "unfun" without giving me a clear sense of how distinguishes between "fun" and "unfun" adversity.  He talks about how resting to recover resources can interfere with the ongoing "plot" of the adventure - was "plot" really covered in the 3E DMG as a major consideration for adventure design?  When did DnD become a story-teller game, I wonder?



It ISN'T a "story-teller" game.  Storytelling implies that most of the emphasis is on the story.  In D&D, most of the emphasis is on combat.

However, there IS story in D&D.  The average story I've seen in a D&D game is: "The kidnapped woman will be sacrificed by the cultists!  You must save her before she dies" or "This man has been accused of murder, but we don't think he did it, if you don't find proof that someone else did it by morning, he'll be executed" or "The book we need is in that burning building filled with evil people who also want it.  We have to go in and defeat them and get the book" or "Find out what the enemy has planned before they attack in 3 days".

There's OFTEN a time limit of some time that you're working under.  Sometimes there isn't.  However, there is almost always a consequence of spending extra time("If we leave the dungeon and come back tomorrow when we're at full resources, they'll have time to bring in new guards and reset all the traps and we'll have to fight a couple of battles again just to get to the same spot in the dungeon we did today").

This is what he is referring to when he says that resting to recover resources interferes with the plot.

As for the rest.  He figures out what is fun and what is unfun the same way the rest of us do...but doing things and then seeing how he feels about them.  I don't know anyone who plays D&D who would tell you that running out of spells is FUN.  Some people will accept it as part of the game, but I doubt anyone I know would say "You know what's REALLY cool?  When you run out of spells and you know the next enemy you come across will kill you and you have no way to stop it, since you have no healing available."

I know *I* assume everyone feels this way because...I don't know anyone in real life who doesn't.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> But then he turns around and says something like "but daily resource management is a cool part of the game and something I wish all character classes had".  The change I found to be startling and weird.  Why in the world would he say resource management is unfun and that it interferes with some important aspect of the game but then turn around and say it's a good thing?



Resource management isn't unfun.  However, running OUT of resources IS.  That's the crux of the problem.  It's cool to have to decide if you are going to cast your fireball against these creatures or save it for later or should you cast your haste now or save it for later, as a lot of people have said.

However, the unfun part of it is when you have no resources at all and are forced to either risk certain death(or at least certain uselessness while the rest of the group has fun) or turn around and possibly run into the time limit problem I described above.

It's cool when you are deciding between your haste and your fireball this round.  It's unfun when you're deciding between your crossbow and delaying this round.

So, the only solution that keeps the fun part(the resource management) while eliminating the bad(actually running out) is to give you a number of abilities that you can use per day and have to manage while making it so that even when you are completely out of resources, you can still have fun.

Plus, you add micro "resource management" in the per encounter format.  This way you have the fun of managing resources ("If I use my once per encounter heal now, and the enemy hits even harder next round, I can't do it again.") without the unfun of having to worry about the time limit("If I cast my heal now and we fight 2 more encounters in this castle, we likely won't save the princess").  To me this sounds like the best of both worlds.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I see.  If I understand you now, what you're saying seems pretty logical - the interval of time in which the PCs regain resources is the key time frame.   My comments could equally be understood in the context of "what happens when you make 'the encounter' they key time frame in a DnD game".



You make a good point.  What IS the consequence of making "the encounter" the key time frame in a D&D game?

Let's assume no per day abilities at all and assume ALL resources can be recovered at the end of each encounter(which isn't true of 4th Ed, but let's assume for a second):

-The players would go out with ALL their abilities in every round instead of holding back
-The players would not be afraid of anything that doesn't have the chance of killing them
-The players don't have to worry about bad luck making them run into a "time limit" of the plot somewhere
-The players have something cool to do EVERY round of every combat
-The players can fight as many fights per day as they want

Now how many of these are good things and how many of them are bad things I suppose is up to the individual.  The only bad things I see i this whole list might be not being afraid of anything that doesn't kill them and being able to go ALL out.

However, both of those things as solved by introducing a couple of per day abilities which solves the two problems without removing the benefits.  The sticking point seems to be the "fight as many fights per day as they want" point.  Which is good IMO, but might not be in others.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Implementing mitigating factors for failure simply changes the perception of risk (which is part of the problem with the "exclusive per-encounter abilities" scheme).  To say that an encounter is interesting because it proposes a chance of death, and then to redefine death as something that's recoverable ultimately changes nothing.  Now PCs are leaving the dungeon after 15 minutes because they need to recover action points, or they're not returning at all because action points are a lifetime resource, or you make action points an encounter-level resource to solve the problem.
> 
> Now you could probably say something like "but an encounter can be perceived as being dangerous without PCs having to use action points", which leads round about to another frequent topic in this debate, which is my final point on this post.



I agree...the perception of risk is changed somewhat when you implement these.  However, in my experience, the perception of risk when these are involved is:

"We can defeat most enemies we come across since we are powerful adventurers.  However, rarely we run into something that we wouldn't be able to handle if we didn't have the ability to press the emergency button.  If we DO run into one of those things, we have the ability to survive them...but only a limited number of times, so we have to be careful not to get in over our heads."

This is almost precisely the level of risk I'd like to have in my games...no actual deaths, just the perception that "if we make a mistake enough times, we MIGHT die...and we don't want that to happen."


----------



## pemerton

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> the only solution that keeps the fun part(the resource management) while eliminating the bad(actually running out) is to give you a number of abilities that you can use per day and have to manage while making it so that even when you are completely out of resources, you can still have fun.
> 
> Plus, you add micro "resource management" in the per encounter format.  This way you have the fun of managing resources ("If I use my once per encounter heal now, and the enemy hits even harder next round, I can't do it again.") without the unfun of having to worry about the time limit("If I cast my heal now and we fight 2 more encounters in this castle, we likely won't save the princess").  To me this sounds like the best of both worlds.



I like this way of presenting things - I think. If I put it this way, have I got it right?:

*One type of fun is having things to do (especially in combat), and with per-encounter resources every PC always has things to do;

*One type of fun is tactical resource management, and per-encounter resources deliver that.​
I can see that working. I can also see some possible issues, related to each:

*If the thing to do is often ineffectual compared to what others are doing, it won't be that much fun - this puts pressure on the per-encounter abilities to be effectual;

*If mucking up the tactical play doesn't matter, so there is no such thing as a "tactical victory", it may not be that much fun (some players enjoy tactics for its own sake, but some do not) - this puts pressure on encounters to be challenging, and the effectuality of per-encounter abilities only increases this pressure.​
Therefore, I think Gizmo33 may be right to infer a greater number of life-threatening combats as part of this approach. How Action Points and Resurrection work then become big issues in 4e design. Does anyone have any insight on this?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> Are you kidding? A goblin in 1E had _less_ chance to affect a 10th level fighter because, if the fighter's AC was low enough, the goblin couldn't hit him even on a natural 20.




That's a mighty big "IF" there.  1e allowed for all sorts of play where the fighter's AC might not be as high as you imagine.



> You're making the same mistake that gizmo33 did. The key time frame is not _after_ the battle, it's _during_ the battle.




Given that both Gizmo33 and I are saying that, unless there is a significant chance of death during a battle it will be pointless (and hence, once the players realize this, unfun), I'd have to say that you are assuming we don't "get" something that was brought up long, long ago by both Gizmo33 and myself.

Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during the battle, then the battle is consequential.  If significant resources are used during the battle, then the battle is consequential.  As the odds are very good that you will use per-day resources only in those battles where you believe there is a significant chance of death/defeat, that makes it likely that we are largely talking about the same group of battles.

The problem the "per-encounter" ability design is supposed to fix is that of PCs resting after they use their significant resources.  This design means that you can extend combats beyond those that use up significant resources, certainly, but only by making those combats inconsequential.  Which we have already been told, time and again, is unfun.


RC


----------



## Imaro

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I agree...the perception of risk is changed somewhat when you implement these.  However, in my experience, the perception of risk when these are involved is:
> 
> "We can defeat most enemies we come across since we are powerful adventurers.  However, rarely we run into something that we wouldn't be able to handle if we didn't have the ability to press the emergency button.  If we DO run into one of those things, we have the ability to survive them...but only a limited number of times, so we have to be careful not to get in over our heads."
> 
> This is almost precisely the level of risk I'd like to have in my games...no actual deaths, just the perception that "if we make a mistake enough times, we MIGHT die...and we don't want that to happen."




Just one question about the above statement, if there is no actual risk, doesn't there become a point at which a player realizes this(granted it will take a little time of  actual play) and even the "perception" of death starts to fall apart.  What I don't get is can't this be accomplished in D&D 3.5...I can send wave after wave of inconsequential low-level CR monsters at the PC's and it will not deplete any significant resources.  Or better yet, let the PC's roll or do whatever but ultimately fudge so they win every encounter.  This type of play, unless a genre device in something like Star Wars, is just, after the umpteenth time unsatisfying to me as a player and GM.

I guess I just see no point in playing a game, which stresses such tactically oriented things as exact movement, AoO, combat maneuvers, etc., but ultimately makes 90% of the tactical choices I make have no, or such minimal consequences to my actions, that there is little to no risk involved.  It seems pointless.  Then when I actually do have real risk involved it is a life or death struggle, where the fact that I may have used one of my per-day abilities could mean a TPK.  This doesn't sound that "fun" to me.  

It's funny to me because I play Exalted and it's pretty much exactly as you describe above, but still has per day resources(essence) and it's whole genre is based around badassitude...the problem it runs into is that  the major fights are often a more desperate feeling, life or death struggle, while fighting "mooks" is a breeze.  Now this being a "genre" based game it has certain tropes that make it easy for the players to determine that mortal guards are clearly "mooks" and the fact that the Deathknight; Mourner of the East Wind isn't.  Thus they have a clue as to when the fight ramps up to a level where they better be giving it they're all.  I wonder how D&D will acomplish this( some type of signal that this particular fight is the one where you should use your big abilities) or will it be a...just figure it out type of thing.  If it's the latter I could see the major encounters becoming even more deadly and mistaken expenditure of major resources on insignificant fights causing other problems to arise.  



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> The reason is this - in 4E, the inclusion of per-encounter abilities allows the PCs to face far more significant threats without tapping into their daily resources. In 3E (and all previous editions of D&D), any significant threat required the PCs to use daily resources because _daily resources were the only resources available for them to use._ The addition of encounter-level resources changes this paradigm.
> 
> I don't know how to put it any more simply than that. That is the reason that things will be different in 4E (exactly _how_ different, of course, remains to be seen). You are of course free to disagree with this reason, but that does not mean that the reason has not been provided to you.




I have to disagree here, per-encounter abilities do not make it so that the PC's can face more *significant* threats without tapping into their daily resources.  

A significant threat has a greater chance for a TPK or even the death of a PC to arise, as well as a greater chance the players will expend their per-day abilities. So as you send more significant threats, the only thing you're doing is increasing the likelihood of death, or the camping situation.  Now, you can throw numerous minimal threats at them...but then they aren't really threats are they, and you could o the same thing in D&D 3.5...start them at fourth level and hit em with dire rats, kobolds, goblins, etc. until they get to the Big Bad.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> The reason is this - in 4E, the inclusion of per-encounter abilities allows the PCs to face far more significant threats without tapping into their daily resources.





Define "significant" in this context, please.


----------



## gizmo33

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> However, there IS story in D&D.  The average story I've seen in a D&D game is: "The kidnapped woman will be sacrificed by the cultists!  You must save her before she dies" or "This man has been accused of murder, but we don't think he did it, if you don't find proof that someone else did it by morning, he'll be executed" or "The book we need is in that burning building filled with evil people who also want it.  We have to go in and defeat them and get the book" or "Find out what the enemy has planned before they attack in 3 days".




AFAICT these aren't really stories, there more of what I would call adventure hooks.  The complete story would be "The kidnapped woman will be sacrificed to the cultists unless you save her.  Oh look you used all of your spells against the mooks in the first encounter and now you have to retreat and rest.  And when you wake up the next day you find she's been sacrificed.  Better luck next time".

Ok, that's not much of a story either, but it at least covers an example of the complete start to finish, whereas your examples are only the start.

All failure interferes with the "story" if your story assumes success by the PCs.  The reason that resource management is significant is because there are consequences for not getting it right.  Take away these consequences (and the affect on the "plot") and resource management is just a pointless exercise.  Now it's entirely possible that some/alot of DMs *have already* decided that the players will succeed, and thus they see resource management as just an annoying feature of the game that can get in the way of their "plot".  If this is the case then IMO they should just acknowledge that this is how they want to run the game from the beginning, so that in that I case I can see what the actual purpose of their game is rather than having to infer it.


----------



## Celebrim

FireLance said:
			
		

> Actually, I think there are good narrative reasons why wizards in fantasy literature are usually subject to some sort of limitation. In many cases, the wizard (or generic spellcasting type) is not the protagonist, and the limitations are there to prevent him from overshadowing the protagonist. In the cases where the wizard is the protagonist (such as in Harry Potter), the limitations may be there so that the character acts "normal" occasionally, which helps the reader identify more fully with him (e.g. Harry's problems in the mundane world, where his ability to use magic is restricted), or the limitations are the challenge to be overcome, or are there to create dramatic tension (e.g. the tension from dwindling resources is one thing that a Vancian spellcasting system with a long refresh period does do well).




I agree that there are good narrative reasons why wizard's in fantasy literature are usually subject to some sort of limitation.  I'm not sure what I said that suggested to you that I thought those limitations where arbitrary, but I never thought that they were.  I was merely stating that in literary source material, Wizard's generally faced some limitation on thier power.   The literary reasons you suggest are in fact I think excellent reasons for playing wizards in a RPG under, if you will understand the word, 'harsh' limitations.  Magic by its very nature tends to overshadow even heroic mundanity and ordinariness.  If magic is available with few restrictions, very quickly you create a world were everyone significant wields awesome magic much as in Wuxia you have a world were everyone who is signficant can 'fly'.  While that's a perfectly valid world, I'm not sure its necessarily the one I want to have.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Given that both Gizmo33 and I are saying that, unless there is a significant chance of death during a battle it will be pointless (and hence, once the players realize this, unfun), I'd have to say that you are assuming we don't "get" something that was brought up long, long ago by both Gizmo33 and myself.
> 
> Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during the battle, then the battle is consequential.  If significant resources are used during the battle, then the battle is consequential.  As the odds are very good that you will use per-day resources only in those battles where you believe there is a significant chance of death/defeat, that makes it likely that we are largely talking about the same group of battles.
> 
> The problem the "per-encounter" ability design is supposed to fix is that of PCs resting after they use their significant resources.  This design means that you can extend combats beyond those that use up significant resources, certainly, but only by making those combats inconsequential.  Which we have already been told, time and again, is unfun.
> 
> 
> RC



I'm curious as to how you justify this viewpoint that battles must consume resources in light of what I discussed back in post 588, RC. Battles have other significance than just, "Oh my, I hope my fighter lives through this one!"

There are battles in which this is the case. Those are indeed very fun. In a tough fight where the players really need to pull together to just survive, you can get some very tense, very exciting moments.

But all battles needn't be this way. Can't a fight be interesting just because the PCs got a chance to show off, or because they got to fight on a very cool battlefield (like a storm-tossed ship or in a tavern where tables can be upended and ropes can be swung from)? Or because the PCs gained some important in-game resource, like advancing to the next level of the dungeon? Certainly the tactical resource management you describe can be very fun, but do you truly believe that this is the only factor to be considered when you try to decide what sort of pacing is right for the game, or how best to challenge your players in an encoutner?

And as I said, the focus of resource management is moving from the macro per-day level more towards the micro per-encounter level, where you have to make the choice of not when to do something today, but what is your best option this _round_. That's the fundamental resource that the game looks like it will focus on.


----------



## gizmo33

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Let's assume no per day abilities at all and assume ALL resources can be recovered at the end of each encounter(which isn't true of 4th Ed, but let's assume for a second):




First of all, I really appreciate this analytical approach you are taking with the list and all of that.  It has seemed really difficult to me to get the other side of this issue to claim *any* sort of consequences for the per-encounter design.

Regarding the "entirely per-encounter" issue (where all resources are reclaimed) - the reason I assume that is because I largely find the mix of per-encounter and per-daily resources to be nothing more than per-daily resources with a higher threshold of significance/danger for individual encounters.  I don't find it significantly different than the current situation for 3.5E in terms of the "9:00-9:15" problem - though I DO think it's potentially different in terms of flavor (wizards use spells instead of crossbows) and balance between classes (both fighters and wizards can adventure for an equal amount of time before resting).

In addition to your list of consequences for the "per-encounter" time frame, I also think it would be useful if some folks were a little more explicit in what their main objective was in the rule change.  I suspect that some folks just want a flavor change for the wizard, for example, and aren't too concerned with resource management overall, in which case I think they should review Wyatt's comments and consider the possibility that the design would have to go far beyond their purposes in order to address Wyatt's concerns.


----------



## Celebrim

Grog said:
			
		

> Are you kidding? A goblin in 1E had _less_ chance to affect a 10th level fighter because, if the fighter's AC was low enough, the goblin couldn't hit him even on a natural 20. Now, if there were ten goblins or so, the screwy overbearing rules might come into play, but just one? Even less of a threat than in 3E.




There was or is a thread in main forum in which 1e combat is examined in detail by running a 9th level fighter (with -4 AC) against a group of goblinoids.  

In the first simulated combat, the goblinoids simply swarm the fighter.  In the second, they attempt an overbearing attack.  You'll notice that the goblins actually do better with stardard melee tactics.

The reason isn't completely obvious to someone whose mainly familiar with 3rd edition.  The goblins where equipped with military picks, and military picks have a strong bonus to hit targets with low base AC's.  Between this and the fact that 1st edition had facing which made the flanking rules much harsher, comparitively low HD monsters in 1st edition could with the right equipment hit even well armored foes.   Which isn't to say a 10th level fighter couldn't put his back to wall and kill off 200 or so orcs, but that between that and 1st editions greater emphasis on 'operational level' problems, you would see more encounters as a 10th level party that involved say 20 hobgoblins than you would as a similar party in 3rd edition and that these encounters meant more and were more sensible in context than they would be in 3rd edition.

As for the rest, I don't think anyone is suggesting that limited per encounter powers harm the game at a tactical level.  Obviously, they do for exactly the reasons you suggest.  But, if you are trying to prove that the game is still tactically rich with per encounter abilities rather than per day abilities, you are very much missing the point.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to how you justify this viewpoint that battles must consume resources in light of what I discussed back in post 588, RC. Battles have other significance than just, "Oh my, I hope my fighter lives through this one!"




Absolutely agreed.  In fact, the purpose of the attrition model, in part, is to allow a fight that is not win/lose to have a significant effect on future events.

I fully advocate battles in which PCs get a chance to show off, or are on a very cool battlefield, but I don't think that these things are inherently "cool" when shorn of context.  And, while I fully agree that (as I have stated previously) this sort of design carries a "shine" that lasts several months until the players realize that their actions have no significance, I do not see where this (or anything in post 588) negates my point.  

For instance, in 588, you suppose the resource attrition model leads to combats designed only to remove resources.  Not only does this not clearly follow, but if your battle in which the PCs shine and/or takes place on a cool battlefield _also_ helps to make the PC decisions in those battles meaningful within the game, so much the better.

I've broken down my reasoning earlier quite clearly in an earlier post, in a point-by-point manner.  I've yet to read any response that invalidates, or demonstrates an error in, either that reasoning or the premises that it is built upon.  Which isn't, of course, proof that I am right, but certainly suggests ways in which, if I am wrong, I can be demonstrated to be so.

RC


----------



## gizmo33

Regarding your earlier post, which I did read then:



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The assumption which you seem to be working under is that a resource-management system must, in order to be effective and fun, include attrition over the course of a day.




This doesn't quite capture the priority issues that I'm trying to identify.  Resource management serves as an effective way IMO for the game to include a dimension of failure other than PC death or failure that's plot-dependent.  It's also a fairly realistic type of failure.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I disagree. From my experience with other games, this is simply not the case. I've had enormous fun playing and running _Mutants & Masterminds_ and _Iron Heroes_, and both systems minimize the per-day resource management ideal and the concept of attrition.




Some people play DnD knowing that there is no real chance of their PCs dying, and still have fun.  So saying that's something is fun is in the context of what type of game you prefer.  Imaro, for example, has played games without the emphasis on daily resource management and AFAICT has a different opinion on it.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Under this model, the question isn't, "Do I use my fireball now or save it for another fight?" Instead, it's, "Do I throw my fireball this round and take out the goblins or do I hit the BBEG with a lightning bolt?" The fundamental resource in the game becomes the actions you have available to you (which IH did a wonderful job with using its tokens system... you could spend actions to get tokes, which you could spend in later rounds to activate abilities).




"Who do I kill first" IMO is not a resource issue per se.  I disagree with something that statements like this seem to imply, and that is that the only difference between per-encounter and per-day is the time frame.  The differences IMO are actually more substantial and your statement above actually hints at this - because now instead of deciding *whether* to use a spell, your simply deciding who to use it against.  Also important to note:  the encounter time frame is something the PCs have a large role in determining, to end the encounter they simply run away.  But you can't end the day by running away.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> From what you describe, you tend to see encounters as "speed-bumps". You need to put X number of encounters in the way of the heroes in a given adenture not because the adventure calls for those fights in particular, but because the PCs need to suffer the attrition that those encounters will impose for the adventure to function correctly.




I don't see this at all.  You are very much capable of running the "one encounter per day" type adventure as you were before.  Adding per-encounter resources in order to keep wizards from dominating these kinds of scenarios IMO is fine with me, it's some of the other goals that I'm not too keen on.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> You might have planned a heroic battle over a chasm on a swaying rope bridge and maybe a terrific encounter where the heroes encounter their first terrifying medusa before they square off with the dragon, but you then decide you need to go back and insert another encounter before the dragon lest that fight be too easy.




For me, I balance adventures based on the sum total of the encounters, and the ability of the "dungeon" to react to the PCs, so yes, that's how it happens.  If the over all number of probably combats during the adventure is too easy, then this needs to be adjusted.  This isn't fundementally different from what you would do with encounter-based adventures, only that I do it per adventure rather than per encounter.  However, there are intimations here that the DM is actually linearly determining which encounters the PCs will face at each step, and I don't do this.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> specifically because it's built around the 4-encounter per day system, but in the scheme of things, this is a minor point.




I disagree with this too.  The system isn't built around the 4-encounter/day.  The CR system predicts 4/day.  You can just as easily increase the EL of an encounter and it becomes a 2-encounter per day.   Or decrease it and get more.  There's nothing fundemental about 4/day unless you match CRs with party level, but there is absolutely no mandate to do that.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I sometimes find myself adding an extra fight as an afterthought if only to make the final fight that much more of a challenging. They serve no other purpose than to chew up resources.




Whereas in the per-encounter paradigm, what do you do if the BBEG isn't high enough level for the party?  Add mooks?  Whatelse can you do?  I don't see why the per-encounter paradigm changes anything about this - an easy situation, whether it's per encounter or per day is still an easy situation.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I find that the latter better promotes the sort of games I want to play and run because they are less-likely to enforce artificial, rules-based restrictions on pacing.




It's a game, so everything is artificial and rules-based at some level.  The idea that you get beat in the head with an axe and your cleric heals you and a minute later gets all his spells back is as least as artificial (and IMO moreso) than anything else.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I also feel that the latter is superior because it allows for different types of pacing,




I don't engineer pacing in my games because I don't engineer outcomes or the stories.  Pacing in my game is driven by the player's choices and what makes sense for the situation, not how cool I would think it would be if the BBEG tells the PC that he's his father just before he falls off the cliff.  That sort of heavy-handed manipulation IMO is fine for a novel but not what my players expect from a game.  However - this is entirely a play-style issue.  The irony here is that I'm skeptical that per-encounter resources support story-based gaming better than per-day.  IMO per-encounter resources introduce as much plot-busting stuff as per-day.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And by the way, even under a per-encounter model, it's still not too difficult to add attrition. Fatigue rules are a wonderful thing




Fatigue rules are a wonderful thing?  So you use them?  I doubt it based on what you've said above.  I am always wary of unsubstantiated advice.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't find it significantly different than the current situation for 3.5E in terms of the "9:00-9:15" problem





  Thats because that issue, in the end, is going to be decided by playstyle, which isn't something that can be quantified or determined based on the rules.

  Groups that insist on being at 100% at all times will always do the "9:00-9:15" thing. And those people probably wont see it as a problem. 




> though I DO think it's potentially different in terms of flavor (wizards use spells instead of crossbows) and balance between classes (both fighters and wizards can adventure for an equal amount of time before resting).





  THESE issues are what lead other groups, groups that don't necessarily feel the need specifically to be at 100% at all times, to still do the 9:00-9:15 thing. These groups may be quite willing to go until say 20 or 30% resources. But the trouble is, in the current system, some classes drop to 20, 10 or even 0%, especially at low levels, while everyone else is still at 50% or more.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> THESE issues are what lead other groups, groups that don't necessarily feel the need specifically to be at 100% at all times, to still do the 9:00-9:15 thing.




Well I'm all for solving this problem.  Give wizards something "per-encounter" and effective to do instead of the crossbow.  Balance out their powers so they don't dominate combat in the "1 encounter per day" model nor do they run out of steam before the fighters in the party do.  I'm fine with all of that.

As it stands the mix of per-encounter and per-day abilites advocated by the web article of Monte Cook's cited in this thread, as well as what seems the likely design for 4E, does this fine IMO.  The degree of power differential between per-encounter and per-day abilities will determine how much of a role attrition vs. deadliness will play in 4E, but that becomes a spectrum as long as there are still some daily resources.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Well I'm all for solving this problem.  Give wizards something "per-encounter" and effective to do instead of the crossbow.  Balance out their powers so they don't dominate combat in the "1 encounter per day" model nor do they run out of steam before the fighters in the party do.  I'm fine with all of that.
> 
> As it stands the mix of per-encounter and per-day abilites advocated by the web article of Monte Cook's cited in this thread, as well as what seems the likely design for 4E, does this fine IMO.  The degree of power differential between per-encounter and per-day abilities will determine how much of a role attrition vs. deadliness will play in 4E, but that becomes a spectrum as long as there are still some daily resources.





  yea thats kind of my point. I dont think we can draw a whole lot of really specific conclusions without more info on the per-encounter and at will abilities. How many you get, their nature, their possible ties to prepared spells etc.


----------



## Imaro

You know what I was wondering, why does everyone regulate the wizard to the crossbow once his spells run out?  What about thinking outside the box with the wizard character, some suggestions...

1. Use alchemist fire, holy water, tanglefoot bags and flasks of acid (great inspiration for this in the movie 300)

2. If you're spells are depleted throw some armor on (hastily donned chain mail or put it on before the encounter gives a +3/+4 to AC and most wizards already have at least a +1/+2 Dex bonus) and aid another or flank(which offsets the -2 armor penalty to attk rolls). 

3.  Use the feint maneuver(not affected by the Dex penalty since it's a bluff check) after putting the armor on, in tangent with the flanking bonus. It gives a +2 to hit(again offsetting armor penalty) and opponent looses Dex bonus, especially good for high cha sorcerers with Bluff skill)

These are just a few of the things I've seen my players pull and they were both creative  and fun.


----------



## Merlion

Imaro said:
			
		

> You know what I was wondering, why does everyone regulate the wizard to the crossbow once his spells run out?  What about thinking outside the box with the wizard character, some suggestions...
> 
> 1. Use alchemist fire, holy water, tanglefoot bags and flasks of acid (great inspiration for this in the movie 300)
> 
> 2. If you're spells are depleted throw some armor on (hastily donned chain mail or put it on before the encounter gives a +3/+4 to AC and most wizards already have at least a +1/+2 Dex bonus) and aid another or flank(which offsets the -2 armor penalty to attk rolls).
> 
> 3.  Use the feint maneuver(not affected by the Dex penalty since it's a bluff check) after putting the armor on, in tangent with the flanking bonus. It gives a +2 to hit(again offsetting armor penalty) and opponent looses Dex bonus, especially good for high cha sorcerers with Bluff skill)
> 
> These are just a few of the things I've seen my players pull and they were both creative  and fun.





  And theres nothing wrong with any of those.

But for many, playing a wizard is about the wizard archtype, which is about magic, and knowledge. Not running out of magic and then running into physical combat, one way or another, for which you are extremely ill suited and which is likely to kill you.

  the "crossbow" has basically become a catch all for all those types of things. Few wizards in fiction run out of magic and then start firing a crossbow, or throw on armor and start feinting (it would be more likely that they'd run out of magic and FAINT from exhaustion.)


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Merlion said:
			
		

> But for many, playing a wizard is about the wizard archtype, which is about magic, and knowledge. Not running out of magic and then running into physical combat, one way or another, for which you are extremely ill suited and which is likely to kill you.



_Which_ wizard archetype?  The lowest-level wizards in D&D, for the past 30+ years, usually hang back and do rather little in combat but can throw a big spell once in a while.  A wizard in LOTR rarely uses magic because it attracts attention, and often uses weapons.  The wizards in Conan the Barbarian use a few magical effects (Raise Dead, Polymorph, Finger of Death, Charm Person, Hold Person), but do not shy from using weapons (Thulsa Doom kill Conan's mother with a sword, the other wizard kills an enemy with a spear).

Saying "D&D wizards aren't wizardly enough" is like saying trolls aren't troll-like, dwarves aren't dwarf-like, or elves aren't elf-like -- all of which may be true if you are considering them in the context of Scandinavian mythology.  Or saying that clerics aren't very cleric-like.

D&D isn't a _generic _ fantasy RPG system.  It's D&D, with "wizard" having certain connotations just like "cleric," "dwarf," or "troll."


----------



## Merlion

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> _Which_ wizard archetype?  The lowest-level wizards in D&D, for the past 30+ years, usually hang back and do rather little in combat but can throw a big spell once in a while.  A wizard in LOTR rarely uses magic because it attracts attention, and often uses weapons.  The wizards in Conan the Barbarian use a few magical effects (Raise Dead, Polymorph, Finger of Death, Charm Person, Hold Person), but do not shy from using weapons (Thulsa Doom kill Conan's mother with a sword, the other wizard kills an enemy with a spear).
> 
> Saying "D&D wizards aren't wizardly enough" is like saying trolls aren't troll-like, dwarves aren't dwarf-like, or elves aren't elf-like -- all of which may be true if you are considering them in the context of Scandinavian mythology.  Or saying that clerics aren't very cleric-like.
> 
> D&D isn't a _generic _ fantasy RPG system.  It's D&D, with "wizard" having certain connotations just like "cleric," "dwarf," or "troll."





  First of, D&D can't make up its mind wether its generic or not.

Second, within D&D, Wizards main class feature is magic. Their role(s) revolve around the use of magic. Without magic, they can't contribute much to combat and, to many at least, don't feel especially wizard like. People play wizards to use magic, as far as combat goes, not fire crossbows or throw alchemists fire.

  Thirdly, as I've already mentioned, LOTR "wizards" arent wizards, and the Conan stories are generally not much focused on magic.

  The D&D wizard is based on wizard archtypes that involve frequent use of magic, for the most part.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> yea thats kind of my point. I dont think we can draw a whole lot of really specific conclusions without more info on the per-encounter and at will abilities. How many you get, their nature, their possible ties to prepared spells etc.




Why not discuss hypotheticals?  By the time "we" know anything for certain, it will be a done deal and then it will move from "don't discuss because it's hypothetical" to "don't discuss because it's a moot point".  That game works in politics I guess but I would hope we could have some sensible discussion of the possibilities up front.


----------



## Celebrim

Merlion said:
			
		

> The D&D wizard is based on wizard archtypes that involve frequent use of magic, for the most part.




I would argue that the D&D wizard is, like almost every other thing in D&D, based on itself and the archetype of the D&D wizard is self-created based on people's play experience with D&D wizards.  

It is valid to point out that the play experience of a very low level wizard and a very high level one is very different, and much more different than the differences between being a low level fighter and a high level one (except in the sense that at low levels, fighters are definately the center of attention and they are not at high levels).  You can make the argument that people's experience of a D&D wizard at high levels causes them to expect a different experience of a wizard character at low levels, though I think that that argument would be quite forced.

I think a much stronger argument would be to compare D&D's play experience which historically is 'high levels are different than low levels' with the Diablo play experience and ask, 'Is there something about today which causes most new D&D pen and paper gamers to expect something closer to the Diablo play experience than historic D&D?'


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Why not discuss hypotheticals?  By the time "we" know anything for certain, it will be a done deal and then it will move from "don't discuss because it's hypothetical" to "don't discuss because it's a moot point".  That game works in politics I guess but I would hope we could have some sensible discussion of the possibilities up front.





  But you havent been having a sensible discussion of the possibilities. You seem to have decided what WILL be the case, based on the tiny amounts of information we have.


----------



## Merlion

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I would argue that the D&D wizard is, like almost every other thing in D&D, based on itself and the archetype of the D&D wizard is self-created based on people's play experience with D&D wizards.  '





And I would say most things in D&D are pretty clearly based on various literary and mythological figures, concepts, and archtypes.

  Of course, D&D has changed them. And there are some "D&Disms" like the Cleric. 





> It is valid to point out that the play experience of a very low level wizard and a very high level one is very different, and much more different than the differences between being a low level fighter and a high level one (except in the sense that at low levels, fighters are definately the center of attention and they are not at high levels). You can make the argument that people's experience of a D&D wizard at high levels causes them to expect a different experience of a wizard character at low levels, though I think that that argument would be quite forced.






Or I can just repeat what i've said before. That many who play wizards play them to contribute magically as far as combat, and wish to be able to do that most of the time. Rather than having to wait several levels to be able to consistently play their class as they want to play it, and a few more to be able to do so the majority of the time.





> I think a much stronger argument would be to compare D&D's play experience which historically is 'high levels are different than low levels' with the Diablo play experience and ask, 'Is there something about today which causes most new D&D pen and paper gamers to expect something closer to the Diablo play experience than historic D&D?'





I am not saying this is what you mean, but it sounds much like your saying that D&D players have been "spoiled" by videogames into wanting to be able to blast away at all times. 


Just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesnt mean people havent been unhappy with it


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> But you havent been having a sensible discussion of the possibilities. You seem to have decided what WILL be the case, based on the tiny amounts of information we have.




You're not reading carefully at all.  And assuming that you are an infallible judge of everything that I've said to the degree that you propose a statistically unlikely thing such as that my posts have not been sensible.  I find that the not-so-rare-on-the-internet combination of rude and overly speculative.  

In fact, I called out my obvious assumptions in my reasoning in a recent post in order to address some other aspect of the issue.  This whole "wait until the rules are published thing" doesn't make any sense anyway, the argument will just turn to "why complain, there's nothing you can do".  

If someone wants to discuss what happens if gnomes get removed from the game, why is it relevant to stonewall the conversation with some largely irrelevant issue of whether or not it will really happen in 4E.  Given the dynamic nature of RPGs, it could happen in 4.5 or 5.0, or people's house rules, or other situations that makes the conversation worth having.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> You're not reading carefully at all.  And assuming that you are an infallible judge of everything that I've said to the degree that you propose a statistically unlikely thing such as that my posts have not been sensible.  I find that the not-so-rare-on-the-internet combination of rude and overly speculative.
> 
> In fact, I called out my obvious assumptions in my reasoning in a recent post in order to address some other aspect of the issue.  This whole "wait until the rules are published thing" doesn't make any sense anyway, the argument will just turn to "why complain, there's nothing you can do".
> 
> If someone wants to discuss what happens if gnomes get removed from the game, why is it relevant to stonewall the conversation with some largely irrelevant issue of whether or not it will really happen in 4E.  Given the dynamic nature of RPGs, it could happen in 4.5 or 5.0, or people's house rules, or other situations that makes the conversation worth having.






  All I am saying is this. You've been saying all along that per encounter abilities are going to have certain specific effects on the game.

  I am saying, we don't know for sure what exact effects they will have because we know basically nothing about them apart from that they will exist. We dont know all the rules governing them. We don't know how or if they interact with other aspects of a characters abilities. We don't know how many characters get, or their natures.

  Therefore, we can say that per-encounter abilities in general may be likely to have this or that impact, but we can't say that the exact system of per encounter abilities that 4e will have will have a certain specific set of effects, because we dont have any information about them. Speculating is fine, but you havent been speculating. You have, in the posts I have seen, been stating that having per-encounter abilities will, beyond all doubt, have a certain set of effects on gameplay. Not that it might, or could or even that its likely to, but that it WILL.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> I am saying, we don't know for sure what exact effects they will have because we know basically nothing about them apart from that they will exist. We dont know all the rules governing them. We don't know how or if they interact with other aspects of a characters abilities. We don't know how many characters get, or their natures.




I don't know what page number of the PHB the wizard class will be described on, so therefore I can't talk about the various design elements?  I find your language here to be rather vague, and the number of specific caveats that you introduced IIRC is about zero, so if you thought there was some relevant possible detail missing, why not give an example of one?  

Why not take a specific issue and say "here are a list of things that we don't know that would have a bearing on this".  In places where this has been done, me and others have been willing to discuss the ramifications of those possiblities as well.  Want to mix and match daily resources with encounter resources?  That's been discussed.  Want to make daily resources only utility stuff like phantom steed?  We've gone over that too.  

Proposing an ineffable, unknowable, and infallable rule that will trump any logic with a design issue IMO is probably some strange logical fallacy I'm not familiar with.  If you don't think the starting conditions for hypothesizing are being taken into account, then just say what they are.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> but we can't say that the exact system of per encounter abilities that 4e will have will have a certain specific set of effects, because we dont have any information about them.




Monte Cook's web page describes a problem, describes the nature of the problem, and then proposes a solution.  If what you were saying were true then it would apply to his posting, and Wyatt's, and everyone else who's tried to explain something about their proposed new system, 4E or otherwise.  



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Speculating is fine, but you havent been speculating. You have, in the posts I have seen, been stating that having per-encounter abilities will, beyond all doubt, have a certain set of effects on gameplay. Not that it might, or could or even that its likely to, but that it WILL.




You accused me of speculating on the final form that 4E will take.  That's not the same thing as following a chain of reasoning that says a certain design feature will create a certain effect.  This line of reasoning would have to be valid or else you'd have _no business sugggesting that you have any idea what kind of game 4E would be if it retained the Vancian spell casting system in it's entirety_  In other words, based on what you've written I find the amount of speculation that you allow to others to be inconsistent with what you allow yourself.


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during the battle, then the battle is consequential.  If significant resources are used during the battle, then the battle is consequential.




And what you are missing is that *per-encounter resources are still resources.* They can be used up in any given battle, and thus require tactical decisions as to how they can best be used. A PC who uses his per-encounter resources too soon or in an inefficient manner could easily find himself in trouble very quickly - in much the same way that a PC who uses his per-day resources too soon or in an inefficient manner can find himself in trouble under the current system.

As I've said, even if a battle isn't a life-or-death situation initially, poor tactical decisions on the part of the PCs can turn it into one very quickly.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As the odds are very good that you will use per-day resources only in those battles where you believe there is a significant chance of death/defeat, that makes it likely that we are largely talking about the same group of battles.




I don't think that follows at all. The obvious counterexample is a battle that happens after the PCs have already used most or all of their per-day resources that day. Death or defeat could be a serious risk there, but obviously the PCs won't be using per-day resources because they don't have any per-day resources available to use.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The problem the "per-encounter" ability design is supposed to fix is that of PCs resting after they use their significant resources.  This design means that you can extend combats beyond those that use up significant resources, certainly, but only by making those combats inconsequential.  Which we have already been told, time and again, is unfun.




See above. Per-encounter resources aren't inconsequential.


----------



## Imaro

Here's something I thought would be interesting for people to check out, it's a thread started by a prospective GM who is about to run his first game of SW saga ed.  Almost universally those who have played the game had simlar issues to what I exspressed earlier in this thread and are advising him on it...yet earlier posters claimed it had to have been my GM'ing.  Well all I can say is alot of people must be GM'ing like me.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=353630


----------



## AllisterH

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think a much stronger argument would be to compare D&D's play experience which historically is 'high levels are different than low levels' with the Diablo play experience and ask, 'Is there something about today which causes most new D&D pen and paper gamers to expect something closer to the Diablo play experience than historic D&D?'




I have to disagree with this. It kind of implies that Diablo and "new" fantasy is what people think of wizards, but I don't think that's true.

People wanting to play wizards don't use Conan or LotR wizards as their influence mainly because they aren't the stars. They use Pug, they use Vlad Taltos and  Belgarath, all "old" fantask a.k.a printed well before 2E and in each case, those guys don't worry about "spells running out"

They might hide/curtail their spellwork because it might attract the BBEG's attention, but other than that?


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> That's not the same thing as following a chain of reasoning that says a certain design feature will create a certain effect





  Except you can't say definitively that a certain design feature will have a certain effect when you only have partial information about it.


  You can say, "From what we know about it now its likely to have this effect."

I don't think we have all or even most of the information about this issue. I think we are missing large pieces of the "puzzle". So I find your assertion that this or that is definitively going to be a certain way in 4e to be jumping to a conclusion based on incomplete information.


----------



## Imaro

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with this. It kind of implies that Diablo and "new" fantasy is what people think of wizards, but I don't think that's true.
> 
> People wanting to play wizards don't use Conan or LotR wizards as their influence mainly because they aren't the stars. They use Pug, they use Vlad Taltos and  Belgarath, all "old" fantask a.k.a printed well before 2E and in each case, those guys don't worry about "spells running out"
> 
> They might hide/curtail their spellwork because it might attract the BBEG's attention, but other than that?



Pug was exactly like a 1st level D&D wizard in Magician:Apprentice.  Just sayin


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> I don't think we have all or even most of the information about this issue. I think we are missing large pieces of the "puzzle". So I find your assertion that this or that is definitively going to be a certain way in 4e to be jumping to a conclusion based on incomplete information.




Yes, like I don't know what page number of the 4E PHB the wizard is described on?  I've already made this point about relevance, because it's logical but someone of a non-sequitur to suggest that incomplete information that's also irrelevant to the issue matters.

So what are the missing and potentially significant pieces of the puzzle?  As I've said (also unaddressed), it hasn't take much for you (and others) to conclude that the traditional DnD Vancian magic system would not be to your liking in 4E, in spite of the incomplete information that you have.

And don't you think it's reasonable to assume that they'll accomplish what they set out to do?  If WotC, hypothetically, makes the statement that "PCs should never have to interrupt the the flow of the story in order to regain resources" doesn't this assume *some* sort of solution that we can safely say, for arguments sake, is successful?  Does it make any sense to withold judgement because WotC might fail to achieve it's design goals?  If 4E says "the goal is that every game session ends in a TPK" I suppose you would want to wait for the rules details before having an opinion on that?

I haven't seen you address, or even acknowledge any of the above three points to the degree that I could understand calling my posts insensible to be anything other than rude.  I'm sure you have ideas on the topics, I'd just rather see them than see unsubstantiated and irrelevant statements about what you think to be the overall nature of my ideas.


----------



## Imaro

And finally a quote from Jason Duvall, at the end of his first campaign arc, who has an actual play thread on RPG.net called SWSE Mystery of the Sith...

- The CL system is utterly useless in determining the threat to PCs. Maybe I'm missing something, but I was routinely sending groups of NPCs with higher CLs than the heroes, only to be chewed up by the PCs, and the only time they seemed really threatened was when it was in the ship (more on that later) or when there were a whole bunch of NPC foes... which made for long and dull combats. Even the players have told me that they'd like to see more dangerous fights. Hopefully the next session will give them this, in spades.


...Just saying I don't think I' the only one who found the problem I stated above with the game.


----------



## gizmo33

AllisterH said:
			
		

> They might hide/curtail their spellwork because it might attract the BBEG's attention, but other than that?




I would find this an extremely difficult restriction to implement in an RPG.  The problem for me is that I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every chracter within 1000 mile radius of a spell caster, and the potential reaction of that person to the spell.  Secondly, and apropos to Wyatt's comment - I can imagine it would be *extremely* disruptive to the so-called "plot" of a DnD game to have a half-a-dozen high level mages or outsiders of varying alignments teleporting in to an adventure to find out who was casting what.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So what are the missing and potentially significant pieces of the puzzle?  As I've said (also unaddressed), it hasn't take much for you (and others) to conclude that the traditional DnD Vancian magic system would not be to your liking in 4E, in spite of the incomplete information that you have.





 Huh?

See this is the trouble. half the time I dont even know what exactly your talking about, so I just try to address what seems to be your overall point.

  I dont like the Vancian system. In any addition. At least not as the sole means of a wizard using magic.


  And as far as what we're missing....thats the POINT. We dont KNOW.





> And don't you think it's reasonable to assume that they'll accomplish what they set out to do? If WotC, hypothetically, makes the statement that "PCs should never have to interrupt the the flow of the story in order to regain resources" doesn't this assume *some* sort of solution that we can safely say, for arguments sake, is successful?





I havent heard them make that exact statement, but maybe they have.


I am coming from the position that I assume that they are going to want to try to introduce new options without completely destroying existing playstyles. 





> I haven't seen you address, or even acknowledge any of the above three points to the degree that I could understand calling my posts insensible to be anything other than rude. I'm sure you have ideas on the topics, I'd just rather see them than see unsubstantiated and irrelevant statements about what you think to be the overall nature of my ideas.





I do that only because just about the only thing you say that I can understand is that you think per-encounter abilities will remove the concept of resource management and wont do anything of the things they claim it will do...although I am a little unclear  on what you think they are claiming its going to do. As near as I can tell your fixed on the notion that everyone is automatically going to do things a certain way under certain circumstances.

The thing is tho, while a baseline has to be assumed to some extent, D&D is a GAME, which is social, and interactive, and which is generally also a means of interactive storytelling. So some things, especially play style related things, cant be determined by crunching the numbers.

I dont mean this as an insult, but trying to communicate with you often feels like trying to have a discussion with a computer.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> And what you are missing is that *per-encounter resources are still resources.*




Oi!  Is it possible to get past this?  I have already said per-encounter resources _dozens_ of times.  They are resources; they are just not _significant_ resources.

I, for one, grow weary of repeating everything over and over again.  I've given my reasoning on this in exacting detail.  I note that neither you, nor anyone else, has pointed out an actual flaw in that reasoning.  That doesn't make me correct, but it does give you ample ability to demonstrate me to be incorrect on that basis.  

If you care to respond to what I said, fine.  Otherwise, I hope you'll understand if I stop responding to your comments.

RC


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Oi!  Is it possible to get past this?  I have already said per-encounter resources _dozens_ of times.  They are resources; they are just not _significant_ resources.
> 
> I, for one, grow weary of repeating everything over and over again.  I've given my reasoning on this in exacting detail.  I note that neither you, nor anyone else, has pointed out an actual flaw in that reasoning.  That doesn't make me correct, but it does give you ample ability to demonstrate me to be incorrect on that basis.
> 
> If you care to respond to what I said, fine.  Otherwise, I hope you'll understand if I stop responding to your comments.
> 
> RC





Your idea of significant appears to be based entirely on wether something effects the NEXT encounter.

Something can be significant based solely on how it impacts the CURRENT encounter.


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Oi!  Is it possible to get past this?  I have already said per-encounter resources _dozens_ of times.  They are resources; they are just not _significant_ resources.




If a 4E wizard has the ability to cast a fireball once per encounter, how is that not a significant resource? It could potentially make the difference in the fight he's currently in.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I, for one, grow weary of repeating everything over and over again. I've given my reasoning on this in exacting detail. I note that neither you, nor anyone else, has pointed out an actual flaw in that reasoning.




The flaw has been pointed out over and over again, by myself and others. Anything that can make a difference in a given encounter the PCs are facing is, by definition, significant.


----------



## Midknightsun

Okay, pardon my interjection, and here's my take for what it may be worth:




> Yes, like I don't know what page number of the 4E PHB the wizard is described on? I've already made this point about relevance, because it's logical but someone of a non-sequitur to suggest that incomplete information that's also irrelevant to the issue matters.




Why is it a nonsequitur?  I mean, you can work only with what you know thus far and still have your entire argument negated, or severly damaged, with any new info that comes out.  How is the fact that much of the new system is unknown not relevant to the argument?  Maybe I'm not getting it, but I've read as much of this thread as my eyes can bear. Perhaps you could explain more simply?



> So what are the missing and potentially significant pieces of the puzzle? As I've said (also unaddressed), it hasn't take much for you (and others) to conclude that the traditional DnD Vancian magic system would not be to your liking in 4E, in spite of the incomplete information that you have.




I don't know about others, but I also dislike Vancian magic.  That comes NOT from 4e, that comes from seeing its effects in previous editions, and well, not liking what I've seen.  Transferring it to 4e would make it different how? . .  when history has shown, to those who have seen it in previous editions and NOT liked it, that another way could be better.



> And don't you think it's reasonable to assume that they'll accomplish what they set out to do? If WotC, hypothetically, makes the statement that "PCs should never have to interrupt the the flow of the story in order to regain resources" doesn't this assume *some* sort of solution that we can safely say, for arguments sake, is successful?




No.  ASSUME and you, as they say, make an ASS out of U and ME.  Or at the very least your arguments are standing on variably shifting ground.  Good luck with that, really, I mean it.  I personally am under no illusions that they may not achieve what they aim for, at least on all fronts.  But since many posts seem to be delving into logical points, I'd like to also bring up the assumption of something unprovable (which it is at this point) and how well that usually goes over in logical circles.



> Does it make any sense to withold judgement because WotC might fail to achieve it's design goals? If 4E says "the goal is that every game session ends in a TPK" I suppose you would want to wait for the rules details before having an opinion on that?




Everybody can have opinions, of course, there is a saying about those as well.  However, there are differences between the hyperbolic examples you have been giving and what would actually be sent forth.  Degree of plausibility does matter with examples, as anything taken to an extreme can break pretty much any argument, making all this banter pretty pointless.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> Your idea of significant appears to be based entirely on wether something effects the NEXT encounter.
> 
> Something can be significant based solely on how it impacts the CURRENT encounter.





Have you _read_ what I've written thus far?  Did you read the point-by-point analysis I made?  If you had, you will know that I clearly accept that "Something can be significant based solely on how it impacts the CURRENT encounter."  In fact, this point is crucial to what I am saying (as AFAICT, what Gizmo33 is saying as well).

Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during an encounter, then the encounter is consequential.  Therefore, whatever is used in the encounter is consequential.

If per-day resources are used during the encounter, then the encounter is consequential, because you no longer have those resources for later encounters. 

As the odds are very good that you will use per-day resources only in those encounters where you believe there is a significant chance of death/defeat, that makes it likely that we are largely talking about the same group of encounters.

Moreover, as Grog points out (and as Gizmo33, Celebrim, myself, and others pointed out earlier), if you use your per-day resources, the next encounter becomes much more deadly, because you only have per-encounter and at-will resources.  Therefore, if you can, you are likely to rest in order to regain your per-day resources.

Which is, AFAICT, the point Gizmo33, Celebrim, et al were making in the first place.

"Per encounter" resources were stated in Wyatt's blog to be designed to remove the 9-9:15 adventuring day.  However, the "per encounter" design means that encounters that use only "per encounter" or "at will" abilities become insignificant (4 goblins vs. 10th level fighter) once the players understand the new paradigm.  

Thus, in order to provide challenge, the DM must make every encounter able to use up per-day resources (so that, as Grog puts it, a "A PC who uses his per-encounter resources too soon or in an inefficient manner could easily find himself in trouble very quickly").  

Which in turn means that, once per-day resources have been used, as Grog again puts it, "Death or defeat could be a serious risk there, but obviously the PCs won't be using per-day resources because they don't have any per-day resources available to use." 

Which in turn leads the PCs to rest to regain said resources.

Which means that the problem the new paradigm is intended to resolve.....isn't resolved.


RC


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> I dont like the Vancian system. In any addition. At least not as the sole means of a wizard using magic.




But why wouldn't the Vancian system be the perfect fit for the other changes in 4E?  Since we don't know *anything* about 4E, and all reasoning is invalid as a consequence, then why isn't that explicitly recognized in what you're saying, like this:



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I am coming from the position that I assume that they are going to want to try to introduce new options without completely destroying existing playstyles.




Now I can stonewall your attempt to make this assertion and talk about the logical conclusions of it.  After all, since we presumably no *nothing* about 4E then on what basis do you repeatedly make statements to this effect?   Or I can just accept the hypothetical that what you're saying above is the case, and talk about how the other facts hang together with it.  The fact is that we have a pretty clear statement of a goal by James Wyatt.  How well does his objectives fit with what you're saying here?  How likely is it that Wyatt can accomplish what he wants in the rule system and still preserve existing playstyles?  How relevant are previous experiences with previous editions?  How relevant are the analogies that can be drawn between per-encounter powers in 4E and powers in previous editions of DnD or other systems (like Star Wars).  There is a *substantial* amount of information out there that is relevant to this discussion and I really disagree with the notion that we're as in the dark as you say. 



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I do that only because just about the only thing you say that I can understand is that you think per-encounter abilities will remove the concept of resource management and wont do anything of the things they claim it will do...although I am a little unclear  on what you think they are claiming its going to do.




Given that you don't know exactly what I'm talking about IMO it's at least prudent to withold judgement about whether or not my statements are sensible until I'm given a chance to clarify?



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> As near as I can tell your fixed on the notion that everyone is automatically going to do things a certain way under certain circumstances.




I'm not fixed on anything, IMO that characterization is unecessary.  What I am doing is insisting on getting answers to some statements I've made because me (and others like RC) seem to being going around on some issues that are not being understood or addressed.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> The thing is tho, while a baseline has to be assumed to some extent, D&D is a GAME, which is social, and interactive, and which is generally also a means of interactive storytelling. So some things, especially play style related things, cant be determined by crunching the numbers.




And some things *can* apparently be considered more universal than others.  Neither Monte Cook nor James Wyatt qualified their statements with anything like "but this issue is entirely a matter of playstyle".  In fact, the nearly explicit idea in both of their idea is that the core rule system as a bearing on how people play the game.  That's why there is a 4E and why the designers concern themselves with how it works.  If it was just a matter of play-style then there would be nothing to fix.

Now suppose you're saying that some things are play style and some things aren't.  It's already been established that the resource issues and their impact on the story line is not play-style dependant in Wyatt's opinion.  He establishes this because if it were play-style dependent, there would be no problem.  In Wyatt's example, he presumably describes a game experience where the "plot" elements of the game are significant, and the resource management issues are interfering with that.  Now in spite of the fact that Wyatt's players all care about the plot, they don't *care enough* to keep themselves from camping at 9:15.  IMO the obvious implication here is that the resource management issue has an effect that spans across multple play-styles.  But we don't know enough about the playtest results of 4E to say that this will be the case?  Apparently that doesn't stop Wyatt so why should it stop me?  



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I dont mean this as an insult, but trying to communicate with you often feels like trying to have a discussion with a computer.




I don't want to be overly sensitive but saying that my ideas are insensible without any real supporting substance doesn't give me much to respond to.  Talking about how you feel is less controversial IMO so, no, I don't find it insulting at all.  It's the difference between saying "I feel like I"m talking to a crazy person", which IMO is ok, and "you are a crazy person" which IMO is not.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> The flaw has been pointed out over and over again, by myself and others. Anything that can make a difference in a given encounter the PCs are facing is, by definition, significant.





OK, imagine this:

(A)  I am going to give you a +5 bonus to hit in all encounters.  No doubt, that is significant, right?

(B)  Now, I am going to give everyone else a +5 bonus to defend against your attacks.

Your bonus is "significant" if A is true, but not B, or if B is true, but not A.  So long as both A and B are true, however, your bonus is not significant.

Likewise, if 

(A)  You gain the ability to cast fireball once per encounter, and

(B)  Said encounter is always balanced so that casting fireball means that you will win the encounter

Then casting fireball is only significant if A is true, but not B, or if B is true, but not A.  So long as both A and B are true, however, your fireball is not significant.  You are the proverbial 10th level fighter fighting four goblins.

It doesn't matter what A and B are, so long as they balance each other out.  What is actually significant is something that shifts that balance.  So, yes, it will take players a while (3 months?  6?  a year?) to realize that their A has no real effect on anything, and then you are exactly back where you started -- skipping the "boring" encounters and having a 15 minute adventuring day.


RC


----------



## gizmo33

Midknightsun said:
			
		

> Okay, pardon my interjection, and here's my take for what it may be worth:




It's a public forum.  Welcome aboard and have at it.



			
				Midknightsun said:
			
		

> Why is it a nonsequitur?  I mean, you can work only with what you know thus far and still have your entire argument negated, or severly damaged, with any new info that comes out.  How is the fact that much of the new system is unknown not relevant to the argument?  Maybe I'm not getting it, but I've read as much of this thread as my eyes can bear. Perhaps you could explain more simply?




Because what we know is probably sufficient to outline some general features that the new system will have.  Especially when it's phrased in terms of "we don't want players to have to rest to regain resources".  If the preconditions for the argument are sufficiently expressed, then you can make reasonable hypothetical statements.  Changes in the preconditions don't invalidate the reasoning, they just change it's applicability.  "If my house burns down, I better plan on finding somewhere else to live".  Does it really matter if the house burns down due to electrical problems or a cigarrette?  People's aren't fools for making such plans and then finding the preconditions don't hold.  I don't know how much more simple I can make this, I'll need some help.



			
				Midknightsun said:
			
		

> Transferring it to 4e would make it different how? . .  when history has shown, to those who have seen it in previous editions and NOT liked it, that another way could be better.




So history and people's experiences have some bearing on 4E?  Or only when their conclusions agree with your own?  That was my point - I don't understand why there is the double standard - when a point is made that agrees with your opinion it's ok, but when it is at odds with it then *all of the sudden* we don't have sufficient information to have an opinion on the subject.



			
				Midknightsun said:
			
		

> No.  ASSUME and you, as they say, make an ASS out of U and ME.




Says anyone who is not well versed in logic.  Assumptions are a basic part of any reasoning process.  You have to be explicit about the premises of your argument to be certain that the conclusions aren't taken out of context.  Ironically, the definition of "assumption" in this common aphorism is also an assumption.



			
				Midknightsun said:
			
		

> But since many posts seem to be delving into logical points, I'd like to also bring up the assumption of something unprovable (which it is at this point) and how well that usually goes over in logical circles.




Since it's unprovable I think you would be hard pressed to prove that it is unprovable.  Again, the logic of what is legitimate or what isn't in terms of logic should not be based on whether or not the expressed opinion is one you agree with.



			
				Midknightsun said:
			
		

> Everybody can have opinions, of course, there is a saying about those as well.




Not an appropriate saying for a message board whose obvious purpose is for the expression of opinions.



			
				Midknightsun said:
			
		

> However, there are differences between the hyperbolic examples you have been giving and what would actually be sent forth.




Maybe Imaro could clarify, but one of his first posts actually stated IIRC that his experiences with Star Wars SE were fairly consistent with what RC and I were saying.  So your assertion that what I am saying is hyperbolic is just more opinion, which again fails to be on the receiving end of your aphorisms about opinions - again AFAICT because it's an opinion that you agree with.



			
				Midknightsun said:
			
		

> Degree of plausibility does matter with examples, as anything taken to an extreme can break pretty much any argument, making all this banter pretty pointless.




"The degree to which the significant timeframe of DnD is encounter based is the degree to which non lethal encounters will be less significant than in previous editions".  I fail to see the hyperbole in statments like this.  Like Merlion, I advise you to be more specific because your assertions don't hold up to any specific examples I can think of but I assume (oooh) that you must be thinking of something specific rather than just pulling this assertion out of thin air.


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Likewise, if
> 
> (A)  You gain the ability to cast fireball once per encounter, and
> 
> (B)  Said encounter is always balanced so that casting fireball means that you will win the encounter
> 
> Then casting fireball is only significant if A is true, but not B, or if B is true, but not A.  So long as both A and B are true, however, your fireball is not significant.  You are the proverbial 10th level fighter fighting four goblins.




???

If casting fireball _always_ means you win the encounter, then casting fireball is very significant. In fact, it's _too_ significant.

Actually, this may be an extreme example, but it illustrates my point very well. If a PC had a 1/encounter ability that he could use to automatically win whatever fight he was facing at the time, I don't think anyone could seriously argue that that's not a significant resource just because it's not allocated on a per-day basis.


----------



## Merlion

Merlion said:
			
		

> Thats because that issue, in the end, is going to be decided by playstyle, which isn't something that can be quantified or determined based on the rules.
> 
> Groups that insist on being at 100% at all times will always do the "9:00-9:15" thing. And those people probably wont see it as a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THESE issues are what lead other groups, groups that don't necessarily feel the need specifically to be at 100% at all times, to still do the 9:00-9:15 thing. These groups may be quite willing to go until say 20 or 30% resources. But the trouble is, in the current system, some classes drop to 20, 10 or even 0%, especially at low levels, while everyone else is still at 50% or more.








This to me is still the answer to the "per encounter abilities won't solve the 9:00-9:15 problem."

It will solve it, except for those who will play that way no matter what.

And the designers have said there will still be resource management.

So I am still not sure what people are so worried about.


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> This to me is still the answer to the "per encounter abilities won't solve the 9:00-9:15 problem."
> 
> It will solve it, except for those who will play that way no matter what.




Well then tell wizard's that they can shoot their crossbow 3 times/encounter.  That, presumably, will solve the problem then.  Parties won't camp because the wizard still has 3 shots with his crossbow ready for next encounter?  As I've said often, I don't think simply saying there will be per-encounter resources is enough to say that 4E won't have this problem.  The nature of the per-encounter resources, their relative power to the daily resources, will have an effect on the 9:00-9:15 problem.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Absolutely agreed.  In fact, the purpose of the attrition model, in part, is to allow a fight that is not win/lose to have a significant effect on future events.
> 
> I fully advocate battles in which PCs get a chance to show off, or are on a very cool battlefield, but I don't think that these things are inherently "cool" when shorn of context.  And, while I fully agree that (as I have stated previously) this sort of design carries a "shine" that lasts several months until the players realize that their actions have no significance, I do not see where this (or anything in post 588) negates my point.



This "shine" your hypothosize is interesting, but it's not once I've ever seen, to be honest. I've been running and playing in the same group for over a year now in what is probably the purest attrition-less game I can think of offhand (M&M) and there's been no "loss of fun". I also ran a group through a two-year D&D campaign and played with the same group in a year-and-a-half game. I'll let you know if I do note any loss of shine (shinelessness? deshiniosity? double-plus un-shine? )



> For instance, in 588, you suppose the resource attrition model leads to combats designed only to remove resources.  Not only does this not clearly follow, but if your battle in which the PCs shine and/or takes place on a cool battlefield _also_ helps to make the PC decisions in those battles meaningful within the game, so much the better.
> 
> I've broken down my reasoning earlier quite clearly in an earlier post, in a point-by-point manner.  I've yet to read any response that invalidates, or demonstrates an error in, either that reasoning or the premises that it is built upon.  Which isn't, of course, proof that I am right, but certainly suggests ways in which, if I am wrong, I can be demonstrated to be so.
> 
> RC



Could you possibly link to that? I'm approaching exam block crunch-time and admittedly haven't managed to read through the whole thread. I'd be interested in what you have to say.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> This doesn't quite capture the priority issues that I'm trying to identify.  Resource management serves as an effective way IMO for the game to include a dimension of failure other than PC death or failure that's plot-dependent.  It's also a fairly realistic type of failure.
> 
> Some people play DnD knowing that there is no real chance of their PCs dying, and still have fun.  So saying that's something is fun is in the context of what type of game you prefer.  Imaro, for example, has played games without the emphasis on daily resource management and AFAICT has a different opinion on it.



And I'm not arguing that it's my preference. In fact, I believe I was quite clear on that. My appologies if I wasn't.



> "Who do I kill first" IMO is not a resource issue per se.  I disagree with something that statements like this seem to imply, and that is that the only difference between per-encounter and per-day is the time frame.  The differences IMO are actually more substantial and your statement above actually hints at this - because now instead of deciding *whether* to use a spell, your simply deciding who to use it against.  Also important to note:  the encounter time frame is something the PCs have a large role in determining, to end the encounter they simply run away.  But you can't end the day by running away.



This would be the first fundamental disconnect, then. Your actions are the single most fundamental resource a character has access to. The per-day time-frame is easy to escape, even in D&D (rope trick, the mansion/house spells, teleport, plane shift, etc. etc.), and in my experience, roughly on par (if maybe slightly more difficult) with running away from a fight.

Deciding how to spend your action is probably the most essential bit of resource management in the game. Sure, you get more next turn, but combat is fluid enough that a fireball on turn two might not be anywhere near as effective as it would've been on turn 1 (maybe your melee guy is now in the way, or the enemy scattered).

And your question of "whether" to use a resource is also answered by what we heard about 4E so far: you only have a limited number of uses per encounter _and_ per day of certain abilities. So if you can only pitch 1 fireball in a fight, the decision still remains of when you're going to do it in the fight.



> I don't see this at all.  You are very much capable of running the "one encounter per day" type adventure as you were before.  Adding per-encounter resources in order to keep wizards from dominating these kinds of scenarios IMO is fine with me, it's some of the other goals that I'm not too keen on.
> 
> For me, I balance adventures based on the sum total of the encounters, and the ability of the "dungeon" to react to the PCs, so yes, that's how it happens.  If the over all number of probably combats during the adventure is too easy, then this needs to be adjusted.  This isn't fundementally different from what you would do with encounter-based adventures, only that I do it per adventure rather than per encounter.  However, there are intimations here that the DM is actually linearly determining which encounters the PCs will face at each step, and I don't do this.



I tend to balance adventures based on how it impacts the PCs, and how the world around them is reacting. For instance, in a modern supers game, the average gang-land boss isn't going to bring a bunch of big-wig supervillains on a robbery, so if this mobster is in a heist and the PCs swoop in to stop him, he's pretty much relying on mooks with guns. I build encounters that make sense in light of what the group knows about the world. Against mooks, they can probably expect an easy fight. If, on the other hand, it's a team of supervillains doing the heist, it'll probably be much tougher. The characters are a part of the world, and the world will react appropriately to their actions.



> I disagree with this too.  The system isn't built around the 4-encounter/day.  The CR system predicts 4/day.  You can just as easily increase the EL of an encounter and it becomes a 2-encounter per day.   Or decrease it and get more.  There's nothing fundemental about 4/day unless you match CRs with party level, but there is absolutely no mandate to do that.



You said it yourself. The CR system predicts 4/day. Yes, you can increase the EL of an encounter and it becomes a 2-encounter day, but what if I wanted it to still be a 4-encounter day? Or if the PCs are feeling particularly daring, a 10-encounter day? Or what if I just want to have a string of tiny fights? And the way that resources are spread, any deviation from the predicted 4/day (adjusted for difficulty) tends to favor one group over another, and risk overwhelming the PCs.

EDIT FOR CLARITY: What I mean by "Yes, you can increase the EL of an encounter and it becomes a 2-encounter day, but what if I wanted it to still be a 4-encounter day?" is "What if I want to have 4 tougher-than-average encounters in a day?"



> Whereas in the per-encounter paradigm, what do you do if the BBEG isn't high enough level for the party?  Add mooks?  Whatelse can you do?  I don't see why the per-encounter paradigm changes anything about this - an easy situation, whether it's per encounter or per day is still an easy situation.



Why would I design an adversary for the PCs who wasn't tough enough? This is something of a straw-man. It doesn't make sense that I would intentionally create what should be a difficult fight with a weak foe.



> It's a game, so everything is artificial and rules-based at some level.  The idea that you get beat in the head with an axe and your cleric heals you and a minute later gets all his spells back is as least as artificial (and IMO moreso) than anything else.



That's fine. I like to add more to my games in terms of character development and worldbuilding. The rules should always facilitate that and shouldn't get in the way.



> I don't engineer pacing in my games because I don't engineer outcomes or the stories.  Pacing in my game is driven by the player's choices and what makes sense for the situation, not how cool I would think it would be if the BBEG tells the PC that he's his father just before he falls off the cliff.  That sort of heavy-handed manipulation IMO is fine for a novel but not what my players expect from a game.  However - this is entirely a play-style issue.  The irony here is that I'm skeptical that per-encounter resources support story-based gaming better than per-day.  IMO per-encounter resources introduce as much plot-busting stuff as per-day.



Don't think of it as engineering pacing. Think of it as the artificial pacing built into your system not inhibiting your game. Under the current system, if the players think it would be more fun to storm the dungeon after they stumble upon it while clearing out a goblin camp, they may be forced to decide that, nah, they'd better rest first. Under a per-encounter system, they might be tired and a little hurt, but there's no artificial "But the wizard already wasted his fireball!" I'm not going to beat them over the head with a bat and make them go in. I've played in and run games where the players literally did nothing but interact with one another and NPCs, with no dice rolled, and it was a blast, so please don't think I'm someone who scripts out, to the second, everything that happens in a game. I rarely enter an arc I'm asked to run with an end in mind. I have a few moments I think would be cool, and try to work them in around what the players seem interested in.

So getting back to the original point, how does a per-encounter system better enable this? Because at the end of a long, brutal mission, if the PCs were to discover something that really spurs them on, a hook that they absolutely _want_ to pursue right now, how lame is it for one of them to pipe up and say, "Yeah, I know saving the princess has been your dream and all, but can we wait a day? I don't have any fireballs left."



> Fatigue rules are a wonderful thing?  So you use them?  I doubt it based on what you've said above.  I am always wary of unsubstantiated advice.



I do when I play in True20. The spellcasting system is essentially unlimited use, but you risk fatigue every time you use it. If you fail once, you're fatigued and suffer minor penalties. Fail again or by a wider margin, and you're exhausted, suffering heavier penalties. Or if you fail by a very wide margin or a third time, and you're unconscious. I'm adapting them as an option for my own modified d20 system for people who want a grittier style of play where attrition is more of a factor. I also use the rules as actual rules for sleep and resting, so characters who want to go four days without sleep need to make saves to avoid becoming fatigued. Works pretty well, all things considered.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> If casting fireball _always_ means you win the encounter, then casting fireball is very significant. In fact, it's _too_ significant.
> 
> Actually, this may be an extreme example, but it illustrates my point very well. If a PC had a 1/encounter ability that he could use to automatically win whatever fight he was facing at the time, I don't think anyone could seriously argue that that's not a significant resource just because it's not allocated on a per-day basis.





OK, I will try this one more time, because obviously I am not being very clear in what I am trying to say.

Imagine that you have a power A.  Doesn't matter what it is.  It could be any combination of things, or a single thing, or whathaveyou.  What it means, though, is that there is a class of encounters that you can always win, and you can always use power A in those encounters.

Let's call that class of encounters Class 4 encounters, for the sake of the analogy.

There are other types of encounters.  In those encounters, your power A can help you, but it doesn't mean that you will automatically succeed.

You also have power B.  Power B can be used only once, but using it will mean that you will automatically succeed in one Class 5 encounter.  If you run into a Class 5 encounter without power B available, there is a 50% chance of success.  If you run into a Class 6 encounter without power B available, there is only a 25% chance of success.

Now, you have two adventures.  The first consists of several Class 4 encounters, at least 2 Class 5 encounters, and at least one Class 6 encounter.  The second consists of 30 Class 4 encounters.  You have been told the general makeup of these adventures upfront.

Here are the questions:

(1)  On the first adventure, after a series of Class 4 encounters, you run into a Class 5 encounter and are forced to use your power B.  You can rest without penalty.  Resting will recharge power B.  Do you do so?  Why?

(2)  Which adventure is liable to be more interesting?  Why?

If you can answer those questions honestly, perhaps I can explain the difference between what I am thinking and what you are thinking.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Could you possibly link to that? I'm approaching exam block crunch-time and admittedly haven't managed to read through the whole thread. I'd be interested in what you have to say.





I'll have to go back and find it.

Re:  "Shine", it is interesting (to me at least) that several of the 4e design blogs include the idea of "shine" re: 3.x.  As in "This seemed like a good idea, but in play we eventually realized that it was not."  Enthusiasm can gloss over a multitude of faults.    

RC


EDIT:  Here you go:  http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3759744&postcount=502


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'll have to go back and find it.
> 
> Re:  "Shine", it is interesting (to me at least) that several of the 4e design blogs include the idea of "shine" re: 3.x.  As in "This seemed like a good idea, but in play we eventually realized that it was not."  Enthusiasm can gloss over a multitude of faults.
> 
> RC
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Here you go:  http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3759744&postcount=502



Thanks! I'll read it over.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Thanks! I'll read it over.





Thanks!  Because, if my reasoning breaks down, I'd like to know where.  

(Seriously, not snark; I'd prefer that my conclusions be wrong in this case.)


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The per-day time-frame is easy to escape, even in D&D (rope trick, the mansion/house spells, teleport, plane shift, etc. etc.), and in my experience, roughly on par (if maybe slightly more difficult) with running away from a fight.




You can't escape the per day time frame any spell short of temporal stasis.  What you're talking about is not escaping the time frame, but instead avoiding conflict.  The significant difference here is that enemies can move around, sacrifice captives, etc. significantly easier than in a time frame that is dictated substantially by player actions.  



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Deciding how to spend your action is probably the most essential bit of resource management in the game.




That's like saying avoiding AoOs is an issue of resource management.  I don't think we're using the terms in the same way now.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> So if you can only pitch 1 fireball in a fight, the decision still remains of when you're going to do it in the fight.




This is hardly a decision IME most monsters are vulnerable to most spells - and when they're not their immunities don't change from round to round (a devil is just as immune to fire on round 1 than on round 100).  So consequently, IME spells typically get cast in order of most powerful to least powerful, this is not a very difficult assessment to make, and the only mitigating factor is the consequence that this will have later in the day when the spell is no longer available.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> You said it yourself. The CR system predicts 4/day.




I must have forgot the rest of the statement.  In any case CR is an approximation of monster level and I don't see anything fundemental that mandates that you match CR with party level.  Nor have you provided any.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Yes, you can increase the EL of an encounter and it becomes a 2-encounter day, but what if I wanted it to still be a 4-encounter day?




You could invent a new branch of mathematics and logic?  Seriously - if CR means what it means then how are you going to get around this?  If you design a system where the PCs can fight 6 encounters a day, then clearly 18 encounters of the same strength is going to kill them right?  Unless you remove all daily resource issues, in which case there is no difference between 2 and 2,000 encounters.  



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Or what if I just want to have a string of tiny fights? And the way that resources are spread, any deviation from the predicted 4/day (adjusted for difficulty) tends to favor one group over another, and risk overwhelming the PCs.




If you want a string of tiny fights then run them.  I really don't see what the problem is.  You can get many EL 1 fights in if the party is 4th level.  There you go.  



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> "What if I want to have 4 tougher-than-average encounters in a day?"



  Well then "average" becomes meaningless.  Average what?  In 3E it mean an average utilization of daily resources (25%).  In your case what would it mean?  An average chance of PC death?  What IS the average change?  Define all this and I think it makes more sense than it currently does.  Otherwise I just don't follow you.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Why would I design an adversary for the PCs who wasn't tough enough? This is something of a straw-man.




You asked the mirror image question of what happens if a dungeon doesn't contain enough encounters (in a resource managment sense) to challenge the PCs?  Why isn't this equally a strawman?  How is a premise a strawman anyway?  A strawman is a situation with misleading connotations, but a clear statement of the premise without misleading connotations is not a strawman if it doesn't purport to establish anything other than what it is clearly intended to.   



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> That's fine. I like to add more to my games in terms of character development and worldbuilding. The rules should always facilitate that and shouldn't get in the way.




It's a matter of priorities.  Remove all random number generation from your game.  Making a series of bad rolls that lead to character death or the destruction of a campaign element that the DM doesn't want destroyed is "getting in the way" of the things you described.  Random resolution of events is/was a core part of the basic DnD game, and turning into a story telling game should at least be made explicit.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> if the players think it would be more fun to storm the dungeon after they stumble upon it while clearing out a goblin camp, they may be forced to decide that, nah, they'd better rest first.




This is a matter of play-style.  My players might stumble upon an armory full of weapons and think about how much fun it would be to sprout 4 extra arms and weild all the weapons that they find.  My players might wake up one morning and decide how much fun it would be to have their novice characters challenge and kill Thor.  This migrating, player-centric definition of "fun" is one that my players have not been clamoring for.  If the rule system establishes limited daily resources then it's simply a matter of managing those things.  It may be fun to do whatever you feel like whenever you feel like, but that ultimately becomes meaningless if it's the only criteria for deciding what happens in the game.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Under a per-encounter system, they might be tired and a little hurt, but there's no artificial "But the wizard already wasted his fireball!"




That's no artificial, it's a clearly established part of the game.  It's not artificial to not be able to climb Mount Everest because some dragon bit your leg off - no matter how much you *want* to.  



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> So getting back to the original point, how does a per-encounter system better enable this? Because at the end of a long, brutal mission, if the PCs were to discover something that really spurs them on, a hook that they absolutely _want_ to pursue right now, how lame is it for one of them to pipe up and say, "Yeah, I know saving the princess has been your dream and all, but can we wait a day? I don't have any fireballs left."




Then there's no such thing as a "long and brutal" mission.  There is no tangible reason to use those words if the PCs current operating state is *indistinguishable* one minute after the so-called "long and brutal mission" from that of a cakewalk.  Though I suppose you might wear down the *players*, but that's a different situation entirely.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I do when I play in True20.



Oh!  Those fatigue rules.   I don't know anything about them, I assumed you were talking about 3.5E.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Works pretty well, all things considered.




Perhaps, but I would be loathe to mix and match True20 fatigue rules with 4E casting rules.  Such a thing IMO has virtually no chance of being correctly balanced in such a complicated situation as RPG spell casting.


----------



## Merlion

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Well then tell wizard's that they can shoot their crossbow 3 times/encounter.  That, presumably, will solve the problem then.  Parties won't camp because the wizard still has 3 shots with his crossbow ready for next encounter?  As I've said often, I don't think simply saying there will be per-encounter resources is enough to say that 4E won't have this problem.  The nature of the per-encounter resources, their relative power to the daily resources, will have an effect on the 9:00-9:15 problem.





For those who are bothered by it, the 9-915 is more of a conceptual problem, brought about by the mechanics. Its not just having something to do, its having something remotely wizard like to do.

Also, I correct myself...the combination of per encounter and at will abilities is what will solve that, for wizards. I cant say much about other classes, since I have less of a feel for what their abilities will be like.


----------



## FickleGM

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OK, I will try this one more time, because obviously I am not being very clear in what I am trying to say.
> 
> Imagine that you have a power A.  Doesn't matter what it is.  It could be any combination of things, or a single thing, or whathaveyou.  What it means, though, is that there is a class of encounters that you can always win, and you can always use power A in those encounters.
> 
> Let's call that class of encounters Class 4 encounters, for the sake of the analogy.
> 
> There are other types of encounters.  In those encounters, your power A can help you, but it doesn't mean that you will automatically succeed.
> 
> You also have power B.  Power B can be used only once, but using it will mean that you will automatically succeed in one Class 5 encounter.  If you run into a Class 5 encounter without power B available, there is a 50% chance of success.  If you run into a Class 6 encounter without power B available, there is only a 25% chance of success.
> 
> Now, you have two adventures.  The first consists of several Class 4 encounters, at least 2 Class 5 encounters, and at least one Class 6 encounter.  The second consists of 30 Class 4 encounters.  You have been told the general makeup of these adventures upfront.
> 
> Here are the questions:
> 
> (1)  On the first adventure, after a series of Class 4 encounters, you run into a Class 5 encounter and are forced to use your power B.  You can rest without penalty.  Resting will recharge power B.  Do you do so?  Why?
> 
> (2)  Which adventure is liable to be more interesting?  Why?
> 
> If you can answer those questions honestly, perhaps I can explain the difference between what I am thinking and what you are thinking.
> 
> 
> RC



 (1)  I believe that most of my players would rest, because they would prefer to get power B back in their arsenal.

(2)  Out of the two options provided, I believe that first one has the better chance of being more interesting.


I would like to see a third option, where you may have per-encounter or per-day abilities that will increase the odds of victory, but none that will guarantee victory.  I don't know if that will be done...


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Thanks!  Because, if my reasoning breaks down, I'd like to know where.
> 
> (Seriously, not snark; I'd prefer that my conclusions be wrong in this case.)



No snark detected, so no worries.

The only place where I see fault with your reasoning is that 1a doesn't necessarily follow 1.

To use a more concrete analogy, let's say our party is building a house. Each particular job (drawing the plans, errecting the frame, hanging drywall, wiring the house, insalling plumbing) is an encounter.

As you describe it, the contractor with the hammer and saw only utilizes "at-will" abilities (ignoring, as D&D does, little things like muscle fatigue). If he uses his hammer to hammer in one nail, he's still going to be able to do it again and again and again all day long, no matter how many nails there are.

Meanwhile, the contractor with the cordless power drill has more of a "per-day" ability. If he needs to hang drywall, he can put the screws in with ease with his cordless power drill, then just pop the drill into the recharger so he can use it the next day too. Once he's drained the battery, however, he can't use it for the rest of the day.

So let's give them an encounter. Let's say they have to build the kitchen (gross oversimplification, but for the purpose of this discussion, it works). The contractor with the old-fashioned tools goes ahead and tries to build the kitchen, and succeed or fail, at the end of the encounter, he can just carry his tools to the next room and build that room. Meanwhile, if the other contractor uses his power drill to build the kitchen, he won't be able to use it later when he has to build the master bedroom. Maybe the drill gets it done faster or easier, but the point is that after building the kitchen, he can't use it again until he pops it in the recharger overnight.

Now, you would argue that, were this a game, the system would do better to model itself based on the contractor with the power drill, because were it to instead model itself based on the other contractor, it would be less fun. Without the concept of attrition, there's no "risk" except for a binary "win=live OR lose=die" scenario. Attrition does allow you to have "win=live OR win1=live-25%resources OR win2=live-50% resources...winN=live-N%resources OR lose=die". I will not argue that, because it's very well supported.

What I will argue though, is something which I feel is being lost in this discussion. I believe that 1a does not necessarily follow 1. Look back at the encounter I described. Sure, there's no real chance that the contractors will die building the kitchen (they could, but it'd take an awful lot of natural 1s . They're going to walk out of the kitchen and onto the master bedroom, and then maybe the living room, etc. etc. The guy with the drill can only use it once, and he has to manage that resource well so that he can continue on building the house. But I believe you're missing the forest for the trees:

_A kitchen still got built_.

Prior to that encounter, the status of the "world" for these contractors was:
"2 Contractors
 1 Cordless Power Drill
 0 Kitchens"

After that encounter, it is:
"2 Contractors
 1 or 0 Cordless Power Drills
 1 or 0 Kitchens"

That's the goal of the encounter, isn't it? To build the kitchen? It's part of the overall goal to build the house. By engaging in this encounter to build the kitchen, they either succeed or fail, whether or not they suffer resource attrition. They attempt to change the state of their world as part of an overall goal (to build a house, in this case). More is changing than just the resources they have access to.

This is why I think it's inappropriate to simply handwave away "plot/story/in-character/etc. resources" as inconsequential to the discussion. The idea of a challenge is that it stands between you and your goal, and just overcoming it serves to change the game.

Even in a relatively simple dungeon-only world, this is an important element to consider. Even if I wasted no attrition-based resources killing the monsters in a room, if I took too long and was too loud, I might alert other monsters and compromise the goal. Or if I was smart and cleared out a "safe zone" in the dungeon, I'd have a staging ground that I could launch new sorties from. The context of an encounter changes based on how the PCs approach it, how they attempt to overcome it, and how successful they are. And this isn't necessarily about story-telling: it's about the world which the PCs are a part of going on logically.

So were I to revise your arguments, I would do them as follows:

(1) _Every_ challenge in some way alters the resources which the PCs have access to.

(1a) Some challenges will force PCs to consume mechanical, personal resources.

(1ai) These challenges will cause the PCs to suffer attrition to their mechanical, personal resources in relation to how challenging they are between instances when the PCs can replenish their resources.

(1aii) These challenges will cause the PCs to suffer attrition to their mechanical, personal resources in relation to how numerous they are between instances when the PCs can replenish their resources.

(1aiii) The more challenges the PCs meet between instances when they can replenish their mechanical, personal resources tend to become more challenging based on how these resources were used prior.

(1b) Some challenges will enable PCs to gain or lose non-personal resources (position, clout, the element of surprise, etc.) which the PCs have no ability to replenish if lost other than to engage in a challenge to regain them.

(1bi) These challenges which cause the PCs to lose non-personal resources cause the PCs to face increased difficulties in subsequent challenges due to decreased access to non-personal resources.

(1bii) These challenges which cause the PCs to gain non-personal resources cause the PCs to face decreased difficulties in subsequent challenges due to increased access to non-personal resources.

(1biii) In general, non-personal resources are introduced by a party independent of the rules which govern the gain/loss/replenishing of personal resources.

Which leads me to conclude:

1. Except when taken in total isolation from every single other challenge, every challenge has the potential to positively or negatively affect the outcomes of subsequent encounters.


----------



## Raven Crowking

FickleGM said:
			
		

> (2)  Out of the two options provided, I believe that first one has the better chance of being more interesting.




You forgot to say why.    



> I would like to see a third option, where you may have per-encounter or per-day abilities that will increase the odds of victory, but none that will guarantee victory.  I don't know if that will be done...




The more complex the example, the harder it is to get across the point.  And, apparently, it is a hard point to get across.  Better to start with a simple example, and then extrapolate from there to the more complex example.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> You can't escape the per day time frame any spell short of temporal stasis.  What you're talking about is not escaping the time frame, but instead avoiding conflict.  The significant difference here is that enemies can move around, sacrifice captives, etc. significantly easier than in a time frame that is dictated substantially by player actions.



So you agree with me when I argue that there's more to an encounter than a binary "attrition?yes/no" setup, that the context of the encounter matters?



> This is hardly a decision IME most monsters are vulnerable to most spells - and when they're not their immunities don't change from round to round (a devil is just as immune to fire on round 1 than on round 100).  So consequently, IME spells typically get cast in order of most powerful to least powerful, this is not a very difficult assessment to make, and the only mitigating factor is the consequence that this will have later in the day when the spell is no longer available.



What about, as I described, fireballing the enemy when they're clustered together or spread apart?



> I must have forgot the rest of the statement.  In any case CR is an approximation of monster level and I don't see anything fundemental that mandates that you match CR with party level.  Nor have you provided any.
> 
> You could invent a new branch of mathematics and logic?  Seriously - if CR means what it means then how are you going to get around this?  If you design a system where the PCs can fight 6 encounters a day, then clearly 18 encounters of the same strength is going to kill them right?  Unless you remove all daily resource issues, in which case there is no difference between 2 and 2,000 encounters.
> 
> If you want a string of tiny fights then run them.  I really don't see what the problem is.  You can get many EL 1 fights in if the party is 4th level.  There you go.
> 
> Well then "average" becomes meaningless.  Average what?  In 3E it mean an average utilization of daily resources (25%).  In your case what would it mean?  An average chance of PC death?  What IS the average change?  Define all this and I think it makes more sense than it currently does.  Otherwise I just don't follow you.




How about this then:

An average encounter has a EL = the PCs' level. Simple definition.

The current system assumes 4 average encounters in one day.

If I send 5 average encounters against the PCs, this is considered to be tough.

If I send 4 challenging encounters (meaning, encounters where the EL > the PCs' level), this is considered to be tough. The game no longer supports 4 challenging encounters as well as it does 4 average encounters. The risk of TPK increases exponentially with each subsequent encounter, to the point where it's no longer to my tastes.

Why does it have to be this way? Why isn't it possible for the system to equally support a model that allows PCs to have a wide spectrum of challenges at different levels of difficulty numerous times each day? Why does adding one tough challenge mean that I must now have one fewer average challenges? Why doesn't the system support the possibility of multiple fights which leave the PCs drained of options and weakened at the end (moreso than they would in an average encounter)? Why does it arbitrarily limit how much the PCs can be challenged in a day to what the designers feel is appropriate?



> It's a matter of priorities.  Remove all random number generation from your game.  Making a series of bad rolls that lead to character death or the destruction of a campaign element that the DM doesn't want destroyed is "getting in the way" of the things you described.  Random resolution of events is/was a core part of the basic DnD game, and turning into a story telling game should at least be made explicit.



Where have I suggested removing random number generation?



> This is a matter of play-style.  My players might stumble upon an armory full of weapons and think about how much fun it would be to sprout 4 extra arms and weild all the weapons that they find.  My players might wake up one morning and decide how much fun it would be to have their novice characters challenge and kill Thor.  This migrating, player-centric definition of "fun" is one that my players have not been clamoring for.  If the rule system establishes limited daily resources then it's simply a matter of managing those things.  It may be fun to do whatever you feel like whenever you feel like, but that ultimately becomes meaningless if it's the only criteria for deciding what happens in the game.
> 
> That's no artificial, it's a clearly established part of the game.  It's not artificial to not be able to climb Mount Everest because some dragon bit your leg off - no matter how much you *want* to.



You must have missed the part where I discussed the world reacting realistically to the PCs, and the players being forced to respond.



> Then there's no such thing as a "long and brutal" mission.  There is no tangible reason to use those words if the PCs current operating state is *indistinguishable* one minute after the so-called "long and brutal mission" from that of a cakewalk.  Though I suppose you might wear down the *players*, but that's a different situation entirely.



So following your logic, so long as you're one day removed from any given encounter, then none of them were long and brutal, because the PCs current operating state is *indistinguishable* one day after the so-called "long and brutal mission" from that of a cakewalk.

Because guess what? Up until that very last round of long and brutal combat, under either encounter-based or daily-based, the PCs are going to be battered and bleeding just the same, with their options dwindling. The only difference is how long it takes before they're capable of moving on to the next part of the game. Under an encounter-based system, it takes less time, and a less-defined unit of time as well.



> Oh!  Those fatigue rules.   I don't know anything about them, I assumed you were talking about 3.5E.
> 
> Perhaps, but I would be loathe to mix and match True20 fatigue rules with 4E casting rules.  Such a thing IMO has virtually no chance of being correctly balanced in such a complicated situation as RPG spell casting.



Bah! No crunchy bits are immune to canibalization! Long live the OGL!


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Now, you have two adventures.  The first consists of several Class 4 encounters, at least 2 Class 5 encounters, and at least one Class 6 encounter.  The second consists of 30 Class 4 encounters.  You have been told the general makeup of these adventures upfront.




I have a couple of problems with your premise, here. The first is that no two encounters are exactly the same. Even if the party is facing exactly the same composition of enemies both times, and they have exactly the same resources going into the encounter, things like terrain, enemy tactics, and even sheer random luck can change things drastically from one encounter to the next.

Say you have a 5th level wizard fighting eight orcs. If the orcs simply charge toward him in a large group, he can throw a fireball and wipe them all out with one spell. It's easy.

But if four orcs are charging in from four different directions, and four more are shooting at the wizard with bows from different directions and a higher elevation, it's a very different situation. The wizard may still win, but it won't be a matter of just casting a fireball and walking away anymore.

So breaking up encounters into "classes" is not something I feel works very well. (I have the same problem with the 3E CR/EL system, actually).

And the second problem with your premise is that per-encounter powers are not auto-win powers. I haven't seen anyone anywhere claiming that per-encounter powers will allow the players to automatically win any class of encounter. Any example that uses that as a base assumption isn't a particularly useful one, in my opinion.

Outside of extreme disparities in the levels of the combatants, automatic wins are quite rare in D&D.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Combing per encounter and per day resources and At Will powers.

Currently, a wizard that casts spells at all during any kind of encounter will notice that at some point, he is out of usable spells for the next encounter. It's not just that he is missing the most powerful ones, he is also missing the weaker ones. That's because all spells regain only once per day. So, the only way to ensure that your spells last till the moment you _really_ need them means that you don't cast any at all until that point. 
But if you don't cast spells, what are you doing at all during that encounter? Acid Flasks and Wands might do something, but do you really want to depend mostly on your alchemical/magical equipment? How effective is that actually at high level? Anyway, If you're happy with this solution, you probably don't really need a change. 

But let's say you are unhappy, and think about how you can address your perceived problems. Let's try mixing different "replenishments" for spells: 
Per Day, per Encounter and At Will abilities.

Your most powerful spells are still limited per day. A 5th level wizard casts only one Fireball per day. But he can cast one scorching ray per encounter. And he can cast Magic Missile at will. 

So, in a typical encounter, you will probably get by fine without your most powerful spells. You throw off At Will powers and your Per Encounter spell and everything works fine.
Only if the encounter is really tough, you will throw your precious daily resource. Then, and only then, you are forced to decide: Do I continue without that spell? Or should we get some rest now? 
Since you never know that the current encounter is the really tough one, you will probably usually try not to use your most powerful spell at the beginning of an encounter, only if either the encounter turns out be the tough one, or if you know beforehand.

Sure, the guys that want to be on the real safe side will still want to use the most powerful first and then get some rest. But they would have done so before, too.

If you design your adventure for such a system, you can make a pretty safe assumption that you can string a lot of encounters after each other without needing to fear that the group will rest somewhere between because spells have run out. You can put time constraints in your adventure without worrying that the realities of the game itself get in your way, or that some players have to restrain themselves too much. 

Interestingly, you can also put your toughest encounter at any point you like, making it also a lot easier to have an "all or nothing" fight in middle of your adventure - maybe the encounter where the forces of evil unleash an avatar of the demon lord Namem'ayn'otbes'poken to kill the adventurers, and the adventurers need to follow the trail of his summoning cultists back before the invisible dimensional portal to their secret lair closes...
If he characters die, well, all is like in the "old" system. If the characters survive, they can immediately follow their attackers and are just short their most powerful spells...

Note that every time I wrote "spells" might also refer to other rare resources, maybe hit points, action points, second wind or whatever else D&D 4 will have to offer as a "resource"...


----------



## FickleGM

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You forgot to say why.
> 
> 
> 
> The more complex the example, the harder it is to get across the point.  And, apparently, it is a hard point to get across.  Better to start with a simple example, and then extrapolate from there to the more complex example.
> 
> RC



 Yes, I forgot to explain why.  Dinner was ready, so I rushed my response.  As an answer, it would be because the first one offers encounters that would not be automatic victories.  Unlike a few of my players, I do not enjoy automatic victories and find them to be boring. 

As to the hypothetical third example, I agree that it probably is too complex to draw out properly (staying within the parameters of Wyatt's design goals, which don't necessarily point directly to that style), but it may be the most widely accepted possible result of what we know about 4e design.  Let's hope that they can come as close as possible to providing something for everyone.

EDIT:  I am willing to concede that going by Wyatt's design goals, there is a very big danger that 4e may cause more headaches for DMs, rather than less.  I have faith that this will not come to be (speaking of yours and others' scenarios).  I don't believe that it will turn out how I want it, either (at least not exactly), but I think it will be close enough to be a very good game (better than 3.x, most likely - but, they are targetting almost every problem that I have with 3.x).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Regarding the "entirely per-encounter" issue (where all resources are reclaimed) - the reason I assume that is because I largely find the mix of per-encounter and per-daily resources to be nothing more than per-daily resources with a higher threshold of significance/danger for individual encounters.  I don't find it significantly different than the current situation for 3.5E in terms of the "9:00-9:15" problem - though I DO think it's potentially different in terms of flavor (wizards use spells instead of crossbows) and balance between classes (both fighters and wizards can adventure for an equal amount of time before resting).



I don't believe it creates the same situation.  The reason given for the 9:00-9:15 problem was that DMs find it more fun to throw a REALLY hard encounter against the players first thing in the morning, since that that's a fun encounter (one where you need to use nearly all your healing and damaging spells in order to survive).  However, it uses up 80% of the parties resources so they need to rest to get it back.

My experience is that most parties don't rest until down to 20% resources or lower.  The above situation reduces them down to 20% in one combat.  In the new system, you NEVER reach 20% or your resources, so you never need to rest.

As an example, I've played a Warblade (which has ALL their abilities as per encounter) and I've taken a number of magic items that are usable only a certain number of times per day (such as bracers of quick strike, boots of speed, etc).  Even if ALL my magic items were used for the day, there's no way I'd suggest we rest for the night.  It just doesn't make sense from a role playing perspective to stop unless my character is too tired to keep going or heading forward without resting is certain death.  Most of my powers are usable every combat, so that isn't the case.

Even a "hard" encounter, one that stretches my resources to the limit isn't a reason to stop, since I still have enough to continue.  I believe your issue with this is that a "hard" encounter HAS to use by my daily resources in order to be called "hard" and if my daily resources are gone, I'm going to want to rest to get them back in case the next one is "hard".

The difference here is the perceptions.  As a warblade, battles were still "hard" when I had to use a number of my abilities to win and my hitpoints were getting low by the end of the combat.  It was hard because it was reaching to zone where I might have died.  It didn't matter than the cleric had 100% of his healing left.  It mattered that the enemies were doing enough damage and surviving long enough that the cleric couldn't cure fast enough to keep everyone in the party alive.  We had to worry about whether we rolled too low on this attack roll or the enemy rolled too high on their next one.

Even if the cleric could heal us all to 100% of our hit points AND have 80% of his healing strength left, it still FELT like a hard encounter DURING it.


----------



## Merlion

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Combing per encounter and per day resources and At Will powers.
> 
> Currently, a wizard that casts spells at all during any kind of encounter will notice that at some point, he is out of usable spells for the next encounter. It's not just that he is missing the most powerful ones, he is also missing the weaker ones. That's because all spells regain only once per day. So, the only way to ensure that your spells last till the moment you _really_ need them means that you don't cast any at all until that point.
> But if you don't cast spells, what are you doing at all during that encounter? Acid Flasks and Wands might do something, but do you really want to depend mostly on your alchemical/magical equipment? How effective is that actually at high level? Anyway, If you're happy with this solution, you probably don't really need a change.
> 
> But let's say you are unhappy, and think about how you can address your perceived problems. Let's try mixing different "replenishments" for spells:
> Per Day, per Encounter and At Will abilities.
> 
> Your most powerful spells are still limited per day. A 5th level wizard casts only one Fireball per day. But he can cast one scorching ray per encounter. And he can cast Magic Missile at will.
> 
> So, in a typical encounter, you will probably get by fine without your most powerful spells. You throw off At Will powers and your Per Encounter spell and everything works fine.
> Only if the encounter is really tough, you will throw your precious daily resource. Then, and only then, you are forced to decide: Do I continue without that spell? Or should we get some rest now?
> Since you never know that the current encounter is the really tough one, you will probably usually try not to use your most powerful spell at the beginning of an encounter, only if either the encounter turns out be the tough one, or if you know beforehand.
> 
> Sure, the guys that want to be on the real safe side will still want to use the most powerful first and then get some rest. But they would have done so before, too.
> 
> If you design your adventure for such a system, you can make a pretty safe assumption that you can string a lot of encounters after each other without needing to fear that the group will rest somewhere between because spells have run out. You can put time constraints in your adventure without worrying that the realities of the game itself get in your way, or that some players have to restrain themselves too much.
> 
> Interestingly, you can also put your toughest encounter at any point you like, making it also a lot easier to have an "all or nothing" fight in middle of your adventure - maybe the encounter where the forces of evil unleash an avatar of the demon lord Namem'ayn'otbes'poken to kill the adventurers, and the adventurers need to follow the trail of his summoning cultists back before the invisible dimensional portal to their secret lair closes...
> If he characters die, well, all is like in the "old" system. If the characters survive, they can immediately follow their attackers and are just short their most powerful spells...
> 
> Note that every time I wrote "spells" might also refer to other rare resources, maybe hit points, action points, second wind or whatever else D&D 4 will have to offer as a "resource"...







  This is just the kind of thing I've been getting at, Mr. Dancing Baby.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Imaro said:
			
		

> Just one question about the above statement, if there is no actual risk, doesn't there become a point at which a player realizes this(granted it will take a little time of  actual play) and even the "perception" of death starts to fall apart.  What I don't get is can't this be accomplished in D&D 3.5...I can send wave after wave of inconsequential low-level CR monsters at the PC's and it will not deplete any significant resources.  Or better yet, let the PC's roll or do whatever but ultimately fudge so they win every encounter.  This type of play, unless a genre device in something like Star Wars, is just, after the umpteenth time unsatisfying to me as a player and GM.



Well, there IS actual risk.  One of the enemies could roll a crit twice in the same combat and therefore you'd have used your emergency button for the combat already and die.

Plus, there is a difference from a perception point of view between:
-The creature who walks up and misses then is taken down by normal attacks
-The creature who walks up and hits for 80% of your hit points but then gets killed when everyone in the group has to use their most powerful damaging ability and then you are able to heal up to full hit points

Even though, essentially, they had the same amount of "risk" involved.  And in my experience, no...players never figure out that they are the same thing.  There is a major difference between a 5% chance that someone in the group dies and a 0% chance that someone dies.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I guess I just see no point in playing a game, which stresses such tactically oriented things as exact movement, AoO, combat maneuvers, etc., but ultimately makes 90% of the tactical choices I make have no, or such minimal consequences to my actions, that there is little to no risk involved.  It seems pointless.  Then when I actually do have real risk involved it is a life or death struggle, where the fact that I may have used one of my per-day abilities could mean a TPK.  This doesn't sound that "fun" to me.



There ARE consequences though.  If you choose to use the ability to give the enemy -5 to hit on his next attack while doing 10 damage, it might end up winning the battle compared to just attacking for 30 damage.  But both will feel like you are doing something cool compared to standard attack that only does 10 damage with no other effect.




			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> It's funny to me because I play Exalted and it's pretty much exactly as you describe above, but still has per day resources(essence) and it's whole genre is based around badassitude...the problem it runs into is that  the major fights are often a more desperate feeling, life or death struggle, while fighting "mooks" is a breeze.  Now this being a "genre" based game it has certain tropes that make it easy for the players to determine that mortal guards are clearly "mooks" and the fact that the Deathknight; Mourner of the East Wind isn't.



I think that the idea in D&D will be that the "mooks" will combine their powers in a way that makes them hard.  You might be able to take out that raging barbarian before he can hit you really hard, but what about the Cleric who can bring him back and possibly give him another chance to hit you?  What if the Wizard can cast a hold spell on you and make the Barbarian's attack do more damage?  You need to worry about all of them, even though they aren't a threat individually.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> So you agree with me when I argue that there's more to an encounter than a binary "attrition?yes/no" setup, that the context of the encounter matters?




I don't konw what you mean here (out of context, ironically).  What I think of when I think of context includes the resource issues, and removing daily resources removes this context.  There are other contexts that matter that have to do with the world/plot, those things are affected neither way.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> What about, as I described, fireballing the enemy when they're clustered together or spread apart?




I compared that to calling AoOs a resource issue - clearly certain attacks are best done at certain times, I consider that more of a tactical issue.  Again though, that's out of context and I don't really know why this matters.  Hypothetically if you went with daily-only resources, you'd still worry about using your fireball at the right time.  Most of this argument seems to me to be something like "well you still can do XYZ", but when I'm arguing against something's removal, this necessarily sway me.  Suggest cutting the number of monsters in DnD to 1/10th of the current Monster Manual, and then try to soothe folks by saying "but there are still monsters."  In the case of "dimensions of significance" to combat, more is better.




			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The game no longer supports 4 challenging encounters as well as it does 4 average encounters. The risk of TPK increases exponentially with each subsequent encounter, to the point where it's no longer to my tastes.




But by auto-refreshing resources after each encounter, how does it become challenging at all?  Again, you haven't really established a "% chance of death" for me to figure this out.  



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Why does adding one tough challenge mean that I must now have one fewer average challenges?




Same reason people don't play 5 football games in one day.  It's somewhat of a nod to the limits of endurance, and some of the boundaries of reality.  Other than that there's no real reason any more than there's a reason why dragons are color coded.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Why does it arbitrarily limit how much the PCs can be challenged in a day to what the designers feel is appropriate?




A number of reasons IMO.  First:  it's a logical consequence of determining power levels for the monsters and the various levels of character classes.  The designers are going to decide that your average first level fighter is not going to kill your average dragon.  Secondly, I don't think you can have a floating scale of resource values because these things are balanced across classes.  So if it's decided that wizards can cast a spell X times per day, and that's balanced against a rogue's unlimited backstab ability, how are you going to arbitrarily and safely increase spell casting without finding some compensation for rogues - which could be very difficult depending on the nature of the powers you have to work with.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Where have I suggested removing random number generation?




You haven't, but it seems a logical question to ask when the only virtues you establish for a rule change are identical to other changes.  It makes me believe that I've missed some crucial factor that distinguishes why you support one and not the other.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> You must have missed the part where I discussed the world reacting realistically to the PCs, and the players being forced to respond.




I guess I did miss something.  I'm not sure how this relates to my analogy about the 4-armed PCs.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> So following your logic, so long as you're one day removed from any given encounter, then none of them were long and brutal, because the PCs current operating state is *indistinguishable* one day after the so-called "long and brutal mission" from that of a cakewalk.




If that were my logic.  But by that logic, 10,000 years from the events, since it won't matter, then nothing matters.  That's not really my logic.  Hopefully my logic carries with it  shades of degree.  A one minute refresh time is orders of magnitude less significant than a day.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The only difference is how long it takes before they're capable of moving on to the next part of the game.




That's not the only difference, there are others.  For example they won't perceive any combat that does not pose a measurable chance of death, or a measurable chance of daily resource expenditure, as a challenging encounter.  Now even in the case of daily resource expenditure, if it seems clear that losing a day doesn't matter to the overall mission, it won't matter then either (as Wyatt's blog insinuates AFAICT).  There are other qualitative differences I must refer you to my previous 100 posts on that subject   



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Bah! No crunchy bits are immune to canibalization! Long live the OGL!


----------



## gizmo33

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Even if the cleric could heal us all to 100% of our hit points AND have 80% of his healing strength left, it still FELT like a hard encounter DURING it.




Apparently because you stood a measurable chance of dying during the encounter.  If this is what now will be considered an interesting encounter in 4E then that would lead me to another chain of reasoning.  But so far this point has been somewhat elusive to make, since threat of death seems rather universal in these anecdotal musings yet few times is anyone ever ready to admit that it's basically required in this new way of thinking.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Apparently because you stood a measurable chance of dying during the encounter.  If this is what now will be considered an interesting encounter in 4E then that would lead me to another chain of reasoning.  But so far this point has been somewhat elusive to make, since threat of death seems rather universal in these anecdotal musings yet few times is anyone ever ready to admit that it's basically required in this new way of thinking.




So what if it is? How is that any different from 3E?

Even in a "standard" 3E encounter (4 PCs vs. one monster of CR equal to the APL, no special battlefield characteristics) PCs have a chance of dying. 4 7th level characters vs. a hill giant? You could easily have a PC death. 4 13th level characters vs. a beholder? PC death is a real possibility there, too. And that's with the party at full strength going in.

If your players don't at least have a chance of dying in most battles they face, well, either they're tactical geniuses, or you're throwing them up against exceptionally easy battles.


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> So what if it is? How is that any different from 3E?




I can only get through this a step at a time.  Either it is or isn't true - then once there is consensus on that we can get down to what the significance is.  No sense in being cagey about it.  Being different or not different from 3E shouldn't prevent anyone from answering the question.  Not wanting to reason through the consequences may perhaps, but that's not a really fair assessment of the situation anymore is it?  



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Even in a "standard" 3E encounter (4 PCs vs. one monster of CR equal to the APL, no special battlefield characteristics) PCs have a chance of dying.




By chance you mean .0001%?  Again, this is equivocating - I've tried to point out "significant chance" although I continue to not hear anything about what folks would consider a reasonable chance of death for a given encounter.  We know what the resource expenditure for an EL X encounter is - that's 25%, right?  



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> 4 7th level characters vs. a hill giant? You could easily have a PC death. 4 13th level characters vs. a beholder? PC death is a real possibility there, too. And that's with the party at full strength going in.




25% resources is the definition of CR as I've said.   Otherwise "easily" means whatever you say it means I guess.  The point I'm trying to make is that some of you seem to be saying that a chance of death is now thing that really constitutes a serious encounter.  What happens when you take away the reasource issues from an encounter and all you're left with that's remarkable is how close the PCs came to dying.  The fact that 3E and 4E will share a least common denominator of "dimensions of interest" for an encounter is not IMO remarkable.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> If your players don't at least have a chance of dying in most battles they face, well, either they're tactical geniuses, or you're throwing them up against exceptionally easy battles.




Yes, a chance.  Now back to my question about the 4E design.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Apparently because you stood a measurable chance of dying during the encounter.  If this is what now will be considered an interesting encounter in 4E then that would lead me to another chain of reasoning.  But so far this point has been somewhat elusive to make, since threat of death seems rather universal in these anecdotal musings yet few times is anyone ever ready to admit that it's basically required in this new way of thinking.



 Threat of death is also universal in the per-day balancing mechanic. The whole point of resource attrition is that it makes the last fight that much more risky, hence more fun. The difference is that it assumes players will go through the motions of N not-fun fights before getting to that last fight.


----------



## Campbell

Sometimes being 25 % of resources can hurt.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Thanks!  Because, if my reasoning breaks down, I'd like to know where.
> 
> (Seriously, not snark; I'd prefer that my conclusions be wrong in this case.)



I posted a partial objection to your 1aii (#572):



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Very clear derivation of your conclusions.
> 
> I think, however, that in principle (1aii) is false. A battle can have a thematic impact without having either a resource-attrition or resource-enhancement impact. If the aim of the game is to explore thematic content, then such impacts can be significant and rewarding at the metagame level.
> 
> I am not sure that 4e embraces this metagame goal, however.
> 
> If it does not, and if the only reward of these non-resource-impacting batles is the thrill of "playing my guy and using all those nifty abilities", then I think your prediction about the evolution of play has a reasonable degree of plausibility.



You haven't responded.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I couldn't find a good post to quote this question directly to, so I'll have to post without referring to a specific quote:

One argument against encounter-based resource management I saw was that it would force each encounter to be a deadly and life-threatening encounter to be of significance at all (at least assuming there are no virgins to be freed from the altar of sacrifice). 
But is this really different from the daily resource management paradigm? 

Why does a wizard or cleric cast spells in an encounter that is not life-threatening? 
Possible Answers: 
1) He casts them because he wants to do something in the encounter at all?
2) He casts them because otherwise the encounter would end deadly.
3) He casts them because the encounter ends quicker.

Well, 1) indicates that not casting spells is "unfun" for the player of the wizard or cleric in question. 2) indicates that the encounter was life-threatening, contradicting our assumption. 
3) either indicates 2) (the encounter might become deadly if it lasts longer) or that the spellcaster in question didn't enjoy the encounter where he didn't get to much spellcasting and wanted to put a stop to it.

Maybe others find a grave flaw in my argumentation, but if this is true, then essentially, even in the daily resource management paradigmn, encounters are either dangerous or only enjoyable for some players.

---

It might also be interesting to see how per encounter based resources can still give you the feeling of "resource attrition". If we are assuming the typical dungeon environment, traditionally we have many rooms, several of whom include monsters. Often enough DMs or adventure designers put some restraints on how many monsters are alerted by a fight in a nearby room. 
Let's assume the players are fighting such a fight in a room, and this time, a few adjacent guards are alerted - in a few rounds, they will be there (the players might be unaware of this dynamic). Somewhere during the fight, maybe even shortly after the last monster in the current room has been disabled, but before the "per encounter" resources are replenished, the other monsters arrive. The players might be out of some their per encounter resources - if they used their resources carefully, they can spend them now, finishing the encounter more easily as if they had already spend their resources. 
It is absolutely possible to have the same scenario with the current system. 

But the aftermath of this encounter is different: 
- In the encounter based resource paradigm, the group can choose to press on and have a reasonable chance to take on a few further encounters. This can be pretty nice if there is some time constraint involved.
- Int he daily resource paradigm, the group will certainly want to make camp, unless they know that there is not much to do next. If the plot demands it, they will press on, but their survival chances are considerably lower...

The second half of this I already addressed in my example where the adventure puts a major encounter in the middle after which the players are still forced to go on. But the resource attrition within the encounter-based scheme is different.

Essentially, you can make more dynamic encounters without forcing your PCs to rest after each such dynamic encounter (which would probably destroy the dynamic feel again) as it is today.


----------



## pemerton

hong said:
			
		

> Threat of death is also universal in the per-day balancing mechanic. The whole point of resource attrition is that it makes the last fight that much more risky, hence more fun. The difference is that it assumes players will go through the motions of N not-fun fights before getting to that last fight.





			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> <snip plausible argument>
> even in the daily resource management paradigmn, encounters are either dangerous or only enjoyable for some players.



These claims seem plausible to me. But are the prior fights necessarily unfun? If they involve decisions about balancing resources so as to be ready for the final fight, that _might_ be fun in itself, for some players.

But then, as has been pointed out, a similar sort of resource management exercise can take place with per-encounter resources, as in any given round of decision making the final resolution of the encounter is still an unknown quantity - even if it's known that at the end of the encounter all those resources will replenish.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> I have a couple of problems with your premise, here.





As I said, I pared it down as simply as I could to illustrate what I was trying to say.  If you answer the questions honestly, we can proceed.  Otherwise, I fail to see the point of endlessly repeating myself.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> I posted a partial objection to your 1aii (#572):
> 
> You haven't responded.





As you said, your objection doesn't answer the metagame goal.  As with Jackalope King's widening of my analysis, the additions don't speak to the metagame goal.  Yes, encounters and combats are more complicated that the simple point-by-point analysis I made.  Yes, there are additional factors irrelevant to the point being made.  Yes, I failed to include them because they are irrelevant.

Now, if you were to show where any of those points becomes relevant, I would have something to respond to.    

RC


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As you said, your objection doesn't answer the metagame goal.




The metagame goal is "have fun". There is more than one way to derive fun from a fight.


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> The metagame goal is "have fun". There is more than one way to derive fun from a fight.





The metagame goal in question is Wyatt's blog claim that the per-day/per-encoutner/at-will design will alleviate the "9-9:15" adventuring day syndrome.

No one is claiming that there is not more than one way to derive fun from a fight.

Reading the thread you are responding to is one way in which you could avoid this sort of error.


RC


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The metagame goal in question is Wyatt's blog claim that the per-day/per-encoutner/at-will design will alleviate the "9-9:15" adventuring day syndrome.




And so it will. Not in the sense that everybody will suddenly start having six dozen fights before lunch, but in the sense that they will not feel vaguely foolish for forging on after the first fight, despite the rational decision being to stop.



> No one is claiming that there is not more than one way to derive fun from a fight.




This is what you said.

The only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff.​
The significant impact of a battle is whatever you want it to be.



> Reading the thread you are responding to is one way in which you could avoid this sort of error.




Isn't this fun?


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As you said, your objection doesn't answer the metagame goal.  As with Jackalope King's widening of my analysis, the additions don't speak to the metagame goal.  Yes, encounters and combats are more complicated that the simple point-by-point analysis I made.  Yes, there are additional factors irrelevant to the point being made.  Yes, I failed to include them because they are irrelevant.
> 
> Now, if you were to show where any of those points becomes relevant, I would have something to respond to.
> 
> RC



Unless you run every single encounter, preset every single challenge in your entire game in complete vaccuum from one another, where what you do in one room of the dungeon has absolutely no impact on another other than what happens to the PCs, then my anaylsis is not "irrelevant", RC. If you disagree with my analysis, then I'd ask that you give a reason why the non-personal resources I describe are, in fact, irrelevant, in the roleplaying genre.

Your analysis completely ignores the context of encounters. Every single time. It only holds when each encounter is, in essence, a closed system where the only commonality between each one is the party who engages in them.

While this is possible, you're ignoring the concept of continuity, except for the characters.

However, if you feel that continuity and context in relation to the world around the PCs aren't "relevant", then I'm afraid we're at a disconnect so fundamental that it won't be productive to continue this discussion.


----------



## TwoSix

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Have you _read_ what I've written thus far?  Did you read the point-by-point analysis I made?  If you had, you will know that I clearly accept that "Something can be significant based solely on how it impacts the CURRENT encounter."  In fact, this point is crucial to what I am saying (as AFAICT, what Gizmo33 is saying as well).
> 
> Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during an encounter, then the encounter is consequential.  Therefore, whatever is used in the encounter is consequential.
> 
> If per-day resources are used during the encounter, then the encounter is consequential, because you no longer have those resources for later encounters.
> 
> As the odds are very good that you will use per-day resources only in those encounters where you believe there is a significant chance of death/defeat, that makes it likely that we are largely talking about the same group of encounters.
> 
> Moreover, as Grog points out (and as Gizmo33, Celebrim, myself, and others pointed out earlier), if you use your per-day resources, the next encounter becomes much more deadly, because you only have per-encounter and at-will resources.  Therefore, if you can, you are likely to rest in order to regain your per-day resources.
> 
> Which is, AFAICT, the point Gizmo33, Celebrim, et al were making in the first place.
> 
> "Per encounter" resources were stated in Wyatt's blog to be designed to remove the 9-9:15 adventuring day.  However, the "per encounter" design means that encounters that use only "per encounter" or "at will" abilities become insignificant (4 goblins vs. 10th level fighter) once the players understand the new paradigm.
> 
> Thus, in order to provide challenge, the DM must make every encounter able to use up per-day resources (so that, as Grog puts it, a "A PC who uses his per-encounter resources too soon or in an inefficient manner could easily find himself in trouble very quickly").
> 
> Which in turn means that, once per-day resources have been used, as Grog again puts it, "Death or defeat could be a serious risk there, but obviously the PCs won't be using per-day resources because they don't have any per-day resources available to use."
> 
> Which in turn leads the PCs to rest to regain said resources.
> 
> Which means that the problem the new paradigm is intended to resolve.....isn't resolved.




I think the difference between the per-day resources between editions isn't a matter of presence/absence, it's a matter of degree.  It's been stated in one of the blogs or articles that a wizard will still have 80% of his resources available when he expends his per-day abilities.  In all previous editions, a wizard out of spells has less than 10% of his overall effectiveness available.  And a cleric out of spells means that the characters can easily die if they misjudge an encounter.

By lowering the overall power per-day resources contribute, they allow the party to continue forward with a greater margin of error.  That's the difference.  Even in a 3e game, most characters don't start begging for heals when their hit points are at 80%...it's just not that big of a deal.  But when they get down to 20%, everyone wants a heal.


----------



## Imaro

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I couldn't find a good post to quote this question directly to, so I'll have to post without referring to a specific quote:
> 
> One argument against encounter-based resource management I saw was that it would force each encounter to be a deadly and life-threatening encounter to be of significance at all (at least assuming there are no virgins to be freed from the altar of sacrifice).
> But is this really different from the daily resource management paradigm?
> 
> Why does a wizard or cleric cast spells in an encounter that is not life-threatening?
> Possible Answers:
> 1) He casts them because he wants to do something in the encounter at all?
> 2) He casts them because otherwise the encounter would end deadly.
> 3) He casts them because the encounter ends quicker.
> 
> Well, 1) indicates that not casting spells is "unfun" for the player of the wizard or cleric in question. 2) indicates that the encounter was life-threatening, contradicting our assumption.
> 3) either indicates 2) (the encounter might become deadly if it lasts longer) or that the spellcaster in question didn't enjoy the encounter where he didn't get to much spellcasting and wanted to put a stop to it.
> 
> Maybe others find a grave flaw in my argumentation, but if this is true, then essentially, even in the daily resource management paradigmn, encounters are either dangerous or only enjoyable for some players.




The difference between the per-encounter and per-day resources, IMHO, in this situation are as follows.  Every encounter in a per-day model is "significant" because the total effect they have upon a character must always be considered.  In other words even casting a low-level spell must be considered against whether that spell may be useful, or even necessary in the next encounter or the third or fourth.  This makes every encounter significant in the fact that it carries consequences that must be accounted for besides what is best right here and rigt now.

In a per-encounter model, the only concern in using one's abilities is what is effective in the here and now.  You need not consider, as long as you use only per-encounter or at-will abilities...what the ramifications of holding in reserve or unleashing full blast will cause.  Instead it makes sense to always unleash since they will come back. In other words there is no consideration for long term consequences only short term.

I think of it like this...

Per-day abilities are more like chess in that a move you made 15 minutes ago will affect your capabilities later in the game...in fact all the way to the end.

Per-encounter abilities are like a fighting game(Tekken or Soul Calibur) they take strategy at the moment of the combat, but if you make bad decisions in the first round and loose, you still start at full power in the next round(though there are certain games where loosing the first round causes you to start with less life in the next round, and IMHO, it's a superior style of play.)

The other difference I see is that with a game that promotes long-term strategy, you have time to recognize the mistakes you've made and adjust your strategy to those mistakes outside of combat.  In confining strategy to the moment of combat, it does tend to promote a live or die(just like the fighting game) type of encounter.




			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It might also be interesting to see how per encounter based resources can still give you the feeling of "resource attrition". If we are assuming the typical dungeon environment, traditionally we have many rooms, several of whom include monsters. Often enough DMs or adventure designers put some restraints on how many monsters are alerted by a fight in a nearby room.
> Let's assume the players are fighting such a fight in a room, and this time, a few adjacent guards are alerted - in a few rounds, they will be there (the players might be unaware of this dynamic). Somewhere during the fight, maybe even shortly after the last monster in the current room has been disabled, but before the "per encounter" resources are replenished, the other monsters arrive. The players might be out of some their per encounter resources - if they used their resources carefully, they can spend them now, finishing the encounter more easily as if they had already spend their resources.
> It is absolutely possible to have the same scenario with the current system.
> 
> But the aftermath of this encounter is different:
> - In the encounter based resource paradigm, the group can choose to press on and have a reasonable chance to take on a few further encounters. This can be pretty nice if there is some time constraint involved.
> - Int he daily resource paradigm, the group will certainly want to make camp, unless they know that there is not much to do next. If the plot demands it, they will press on, but their survival chances are considerably lower...
> 
> The second half of this I already addressed in my example where the adventure puts a major encounter in the middle after which the players are still forced to go on. But the resource attrition within the encounter-based scheme is different.
> 
> Essentially, you can make more dynamic encounters without forcing your PCs to rest after each such dynamic encounter (which would probably destroy the dynamic feel again) as it is today.




Okay a few problems I see with your example...the sending wave after wave without letting them recover per-encounter abilities.  This is not the same as the per-day abilities resource management(it's not just about attrition).  You've in effect taken the characters from 100% capacity and stuck them in a fight at 20% capacity...This means that at this point they use their per-day abilities, and if they are enough...they survive.  If not they die.  The player's didn't manage their resources over a long period of time(Unless they are aware there will be more fights in the same "encounter"), you surprised them with an encounter and the resources they have left is based on random factors(how hard the earlier fight was, if they were throwing abilities for "fun", how dangerous the second fight will be, etc.).  Basically it's promoting one playstyle and then doing the switcheroo on your players without warning.  It's more likely to get them killed than to promote any type of long-term considerations.

To take the fighting videogame example above...it would be like playing that and one player being aware that depending on how much you use your abilities affects your power level and life in the next round, but the other player doesn't.  I guarantee player 1 and player 2 are going to approach that first combat in totally different ways.  And my money would be on player 2.

I don't get the more "dynamic" encounter argument.  In D&D 3e you can do the same thing and with a finer grain of accuracy.  An encounter can again be challenging in and of itself without the risk of death or even major depletion of resources because the management of the resources itself is dynamic.  It gives a raneg of resource depletion that the DM can use to shape how long the PC's can go on, which IMHO is a good thing since the DM is the one who must be prepared for the encounters they will experience.  Only got 2 to 3 hours for play well then have three major encounters, each of which should deplete 30% of the characters resources.  Got 6hrs to play make up 4 encounters that deplete 10% of their resources each, then one balanced for 20% of their resources and a Big Bad who takes 30%.  I'm not seeing how these are any less dynamic than the per-encounter abilities.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Unless you run every single encounter, preset every single challenge in your entire game in complete vaccuum from one another, where what you do in one room of the dungeon has absolutely no impact on another other than what happens to the PCs, then my anaylsis is not "irrelevant", RC.




You have Problem A using System 3.  I say that I can cure Problem A by using System 4.  It therefore follows that I believe that the differences between Systems 3 and 4 can resolve Problem A.

In order to determine whether or not this claim is likely to be true, we need to examine the factors that are known to be different between Systems 3 and 4.  Factors that remain the same between both systems are not relevant to such an analysis.  _They may be very, very relevant to other aspects of gameplay_, but not to such an analysis.

Earlier on, both Gizmo33 and I said that nerfing the means to avoid encounters, while making encounters a possible consequence of resting, would deal with the "9-9:30 adventuring day" problem.  IOW, we both made a strong claim that a solution to the problem exists within the current ruleset, merely by changing the expectations of those playing the game who are experiencing this problem.

Your additions to my analysis, along with Hong's statement that there is more than one way to have fun in an encounter, are both strong claims that a solution to the problem exists within the current ruleset, merely by changing the expectations of those playing the game who are experiencing this problem.  However, unless there is something I missed in your analysis is not present in the current model, your additions to my analysis (1) are indicative of methods in any model that could resolve the problem, and (2) are not indicative of any effects that the changing model has over the current model.

In order to determine whether Wyatt's claim is correct, therefore, they are irrelevant.  _Not irrelevant to the game, or good DMing, or anything else._  My statement that you could use wandering monsters and nerf Rope Trick and Teleport are also relevant to solving the "9-9:15 adventuring day" problem, but not relevant to the discussion of whether or not Wyatt's claim re: per-encounter abilities in 4e will, in fact, solve this problem.

Relevance is based on context.


RC


----------



## Plane Sailing

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (1) Each battle either does or does not use up per-day resources. I will consider PC death as a per-day resource.
> 
> (1a) If a battle does not use up per-day resources, nothing is lost in engaging in that battle. This means:
> 
> (1ai) The PCs can engage in an effectively endless number of these battles.
> 
> (1aii) The only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff.
> 
> (1b) If a battle doe use up per-day resources, the PCs will be at less than full capacity. This means:
> 
> (1bi) These battles are automatically much more important than the other battles.
> 
> (1bii) The PCs can only engage in a limited number of these battles per day.
> 
> (1biii) This impact of these battles is to make the PCs less able to deal with future events.
> 
> To my mind, these things together lead to several conclusions:
> 
> 1. In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle. It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario. We have been told for a very long time, "if it doesn't impact the game, it's better to handwave it."




I think you have some flaws (omissions) in your original premise.

Flaw 1: 

PCs are very likely to have expendable items (ammunition, potions) which can only be used once ever. They are not per-day items, you don't get them back by resting, but they are very likely to be used up during encounters that don't require use of a per-day resource. The archer PC *will* deplete his stock of arrows, even against relatively insignificant foes. Missing this out from (1) means that (1a) is false, since something significant *can* be lost. 

Conclusion (1) is thus also false.

(treating PC death as a per-day resource seems like a major, major oversimplification BTW. At best it can't be treated as such until Raise Dead etc. come on the scene, so it isn't available for pretty much half the possible adventuring life! For most of the resource usage here you are considering the players choice in what they use up. 20%-25% resources used up in a fight doesn't have to mean that the resource usage is spread equally between all participants, and a nasty critical hit can dramatically reduce available party resources by killing a PC in a fight that otherwise should have been OK (_"who woulda thought that both orcs got a critical hit with the power-attacking greataxes, killing the 8th level rogue outright?"_). Loss of hit points as resource usage? or healing spells as resource usage? The latter seems to fit better with the model you are describing, as the PC gets the choice of whether to expend them or not. 

Flaw 2:
(1aii) There are *lots* of other significant impacts that can occur from such battles. They may have used up nonrenewable resources (as above). They may have delayed the party on adventures when the 'timer is running'. They may delay the party so that BBEG can escape. They may make sufficient noise that an alarm is raised, mobilising enemy forces. They may reveal PC tactics and resources to watching spies.

Cheers


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In order to determine whether or not this claim is likely to be true, we need to examine the factors that are known to be different between Systems 3 and 4.  Factors that remain the same between both systems are not relevant to such an analysis.  _They may be very, very relevant to other aspects of gameplay_, but not to such an analysis.




... which implies your analysis is irrelevant.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> The metagame goal is "have fun". There is more than one way to derive fun from a fight.






			
				hong said:
			
		

> The difference is that it assumes players will go through the motions of N not-fun fights before getting to that last fight.




So which is it?  If there is more than one way to derive fun from a fight then doesn't that have a bearing on Wyatt's whole premise?


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:
			
		

> Very clear derivation of your conclusions.
> 
> I think, however, that in principle (1aii) is false. A battle can have a thematic impact without having either a resource-attrition or resource-enhancement impact. If the aim of the game is to explore thematic content, then such impacts can be significant and rewarding at the metagame level.
> 
> I am not sure that 4e embraces this metagame goal, however.
> 
> If it does not, and if the only reward of these non-resource-impacting batles is the thrill of "playing my guy and using all those nifty abilities", then I think your prediction about the evolution of play has a reasonable degree of plausibility.




You know I want to address this as well, and I think the fighting game metaphor is a good analogy.  

It's like saying if I bet money on the fighting game it will address the issues I have with gameplay by making the game have more impact.  This reasoning falls apart when you get to the heart of the matter however.  I haven't increased my enjoyment of gameplay or satisfaction with the controls of the game, I've created a purely artificial solution to address a problem that still exsists.  

In your example majority of battles have to have a far-reaching or "thematic" purpose in order to produce impact.  If this arrives naturally through gameplay then that's great...but I shouldn't have to institute melodrama(this sounds mighty close to railaoading) in every encounter for it to have impact.


----------



## Raven Crowking

TwoSix said:
			
		

> By lowering the overall power per-day resources contribute, they allow the party to continue forward with a greater margin of error.  That's the difference.  Even in a 3e game, most characters don't start begging for heals when their hit points are at 80%...it's just not that big of a deal.  But when they get down to 20%, everyone wants a heal.




Lets discuss the "threshold of significance" problem for a moment.

If you examine Jackalope King's addendums to my arguments, you can see that one could easily make an argument on their basis that an encounter with four goblins could be made significant for a 10th level fighter.  Now, I personally agree with that, and I have suggested on other threads that much-lower CR creatures can still be significant in relation to higher level characters.  When I have said this, though, the overwhelming response has been that this is untrue and that such encounters should be handwaved.

This is because the threshold of significance is different in terms of mechanical and non-mechanical aspects of the adventure.  There is certainly some overlap; if those four goblins bang a gong that summons the Tarrasque, for example.  However, I have heard it argued that rust monsters ought to be a hazard rather than a monster.  In this particular case, the effect of the goblins is that of a hazard as well.  (One of the reasons that I argued against the rust monster as mere hazard is that it can be used in other ways; certainly, however, a monster can be used effectively as a hazard.)

The reason that the four goblins get handwaved (or dropped out) so often is that they fall below the mechanical threshold of significance for the game system.  It is basically my argument that, if you can have any number of encounters X, and at the end of those encounters you are at 80% resources, then an encounter that leaves you at 80% resources without a significant chance of loss of permanent resources falls below the mechanical threshold of significance.

Encounters that fall below all thresholds of significance are boring.  The mechanical theshold of significance is the easiest and most obvious threshold of significance for a DM to achieve.  It therefore follows, to me, that DMs will raise the mechanical challenge of their encounters beyond the threshold of significance.  

Moreover, since this change is hailed as solving the "9-9:15 adventuring day" problem, and since DMs who target other, non-mechanical, thresholds of significance are unlikely to have this problem in the first place (since it is derived from the mechanical threshold of significance), the DMs this is intended as a solution for are the ones least likely to continue using encounters that fall below the mechanical theshold of significance.

Now, let's say that when your per-day resources are used, you are still at 80%.  Simply targetting per-day resources no longer raises the mechanical challenge beyond the threshold of significance.  You need either to target long-term resources (possibly ability damage) or permanent resources (such as character life).

In turn, this means that DMs design challenges where, at 80% of your resources, things could go sour very quickly.

In turn, this means that when you've lost 20% of your resources, you should do something about it if you can.

In turn, this means that the "9-9:15 adventuring day" problem hasn't been solved, but it may have gotten worse.

RC


----------



## Imaro

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think you have some flaws (omissions) in your original premise.
> 
> Flaw 1:
> 
> PCs are very likely to have expendable items (ammunition, potions) which can only be used once ever. They are not per-day items, you don't get them back by resting, but they are very likely to be used up during encounters that don't require use of a per-day resource. The archer PC *will* deplete his stock of arrows, even against relatively insignificant foes. Missing this out from (1) means that (1a) is false, since something significant *can* be lost.
> 
> Conclusion (1) is thus also false.
> 
> (treating PC death as a per-day resource seems like a major, major oversimplification BTW. At best it can't be treated as such until Raise Dead etc. come on the scene, so it isn't available for pretty much half the possible adventuring life! For most of the resource usage here you are considering the players choice in what they use up. 20%-25% resources used up in a fight doesn't have to mean that the resource usage is spread equally between all participants, and a nasty critical hit can dramatically reduce available party resources by killing a PC in a fight that otherwise should have been OK (_"who woulda thought that both orcs got a critical hit with the power-attacking greataxes, killing the 8th level rogue outright?"_). Loss of hit points as resource usage? or healing spells as resource usage? The latter seems to fit better with the model you are describing, as the PC gets the choice of whether to expend them or not.
> 
> Flaw 2:
> (1aii) There are *lots* of other significant impacts that can occur from such battles. They may have used up nonrenewable resources (as above). They may have delayed the party on adventures when the 'timer is running'. They may delay the party so that BBEG can escape. They may make sufficient noise that an alarm is raised, mobilising enemy forces. They may reveal PC tactics and resources to watching spies.
> 
> Cheers




Your comments on 1a don't make sense.  The base assumption, as stated by the designer's, is that characters will be at about 80% capability after every encounter.  We cannot assume that characters will make the mistake of not buying enough amunition, as it is a variable that suggests non-competent players(I can't see a competent player playing an archer and not buying enough arrows to take down an army). 

 Second the realm of one-use magic items does not factor because all they do is bring the PC above 80% so by using the 80% or above baseline they are allready factored in.


And again you use thematic resources, which are not in and of themselves a part of gameplay, but instead a consideration of the DM and his playstyle.  An artificial band-aid to the problem that makes the DM have to fix the problem and is just like the time-constraint pushing done in 3e.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So which is it?  If there is more than one way to derive fun from a fight then doesn't that have a bearing on Wyatt's whole premise?



 There is more than one way to derive fun from a fight, if you object to the notion that every fight has to be risky. Which was what you were complaining about, if you might recall.

Further, in terms of adventure organisation, the fact that there is more than one way to have fun from a fight is entirely irrelevant to how those fights should be structured. Just because I can have fun showboating for 3 non-risky foes before the big showdown is no reason to build that structure into the game's philosophy. Sometimes I might want to do nothing but showboat. Other times I might want 6 life-or-death showdowns before lunch. Etcetera.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think you have some flaws (omissions) in your original premise.
> 
> Flaw 1:




I am well aware that there are operational considerations that take place outside of the context of the adventuring "day".  In my analysis, I folded long-term resources (PC death, arrows, potions, etc.) into per-day resources only to make the analyis cleaner (and hence, I hoped, clearer).

If you like, you could add permanent resources, do the same analysis, and change every instance of "per-day" with "per-day or permanent" and the conclusion would be the same.



> Flaw 2:




See above.

In addition, please read my comments to TwoSix, a couple of posts above this one, which (I believe) answer your objections.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> ... which implies your analysis is irrelevant.




In the event that you choose to contribute something meaningful, I'll be happy to respond to you.  Otherwise, I hope you'll understand if I simply ignore your posts.

RC


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> There is more than one way to derive fun from a fight, if you object to the notion that every fight has to be risky. Which was what you were complaining about, if you might recall.




What I was complaining about is that "every fight has to be risky" was clearly the premise of Wyatt's argument, and yours on the occasion when you think it will support your conclusion, and not when you think it supports mine.  I pretty clearly asked for clarification on what seemed to be an inconsistency, and rather than clarify you're trying to remind me of your hazy ideas of what I've tried to say on this thread.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am well aware that there are operational considerations that take place outside of the context of the adventuring "day".  In my analysis, I folded long-term resources (PC death, arrows, potions, etc.) into per-day resources only to make the analyis cleaner (and hence, I hoped, clearer).
> 
> If you like, you could add permanent resources, do the same analysis, and change every instance of "per-day" with "per-day or permanent" and the conclusion would be the same.




Yes. It would be ridiculous.

There are MANY reasons to have fights even if no daily resources are expended. I may want to demonstrate my super-badass skills against a horde of opponents, who even though mechanically are no match, are still (within the context of the game world) an overwhelming opponent for "normal" people. I may want to get something from someone, who doesn't want to give it up. I may have some plot hook to catch.

Yes, you can do all this within the confines of per-day balancing. But that's putting the cart before the horse.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In the event that you choose to contribute something meaningful, I'll be happy to respond to you.  Otherwise, I hope you'll understand if I simply ignore your posts.




You keep saying that.


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> You keep saying that.





And yet you seldom take me up on it.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> What I was complaining about is that "every fight has to be risky" was clearly the premise of Wyatt's argument, and yours on the occasion when you think it will support your conclusion, and not when you think it supports mine.




To be precise, every fight has to be fun. That happens to coincide, a lot of the time, with every fight has to be risky. Not all the time, gross oversimplifications notwithstanding.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And yet you seldom take me up on it.



 Think of it as character building.


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> To be precise, every fight has to be fun. That happens to coincide, a lot of the time, with every fight has to be risky. Not all the time, gross oversimplifications notwithstanding.





BTW, I agree with you here.  

I am guessing that you don't have the "9-9:15 adventuring day" problem, and neither does Jackalope King.  If you use other thesholds of significance in addition to the mechanical theshold, you will have a more varied and more interesting game.  If the PCs have a reason to continue, either because of some reward that continuation will bring or some danger of resting, the PCs are liable to continue (or at least, the decision to rest or continue will be a meaningful one).

These factors are regardless of edition, though.  The redesign that Wyatt discusses in his blog does not address these factors; it addresses other factors with which he expects the problem to be resolved for those who have it.

If you do not understand what causes a problem like this, it is difficult to resolve it.  Wyatt's blog implies that he doesn't understand the cause of the problem.  Moreover, analysis of Wyatt's solution shows that it is unlikely to resolve the problem _if you have that problem to begin with_.

Had Wyatt instead said "We are going to resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem by putting a risk/reward factor (back) into making the decision to rest or not" then I would feel that he both understood the problem, and was presenting a clear solution.


RC


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> These factors are regardless of edition, though.  The redesign that Wyatt discusses in his blog does not address these factors; it addresses other factors with which he expects the problem to be resolved for those who have it.




Of course it will. Not in the sense that everybody will suddenly start having six dozen fights before lunch, but in the sense that they will not feel vaguely foolish for forging on after the first fight, despite the rational decision being to stop.

Why, I get the feeling I might have said this before.

Furthermore, by explicitly designing the game around per-encounter, they also remove the issue of classes that can overshadow everyone else by blowing their load all at once. Which I might also have said before.


----------



## Doug McCrae

I haven't read most of the thread so not sure if this point has been made already.

In 3e it is possible for physical combatants - fighters, barbarians, druids in animal form, etc - to keep going all day long thanks to wands of cure light wounds. It all comes down to money. A 1st level wand costs 750gp for 50 spells. CLW heals 1d8+1hp, 5.5hp on average. So each hp healed costs less than 3gp. It should be easy to make enough money from each fight to cover the costs of hp loss, especially if you tackle foes that only hit on a natural 20.

The only real limit is travel time between foes and finding more of them. This is much less of a problem in a traditional massive dungeon, which is in fact required for physical fighters to shine. Few encounters per day favours casters.


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> Of course it will. Not in the sense that everybody will suddenly start having six dozen fights before lunch, but in the sense that they will not feel vaguely foolish for forging on after the first fight, despite the rational decision being to stop.
> 
> Why, I get the feeling I might have said this before.




Of course you have.  But it remains an unsupported statement, whereas the converse view has been massively supported.



> Furthermore, by explicitly designing the game around per-encounter, they also remove the issue of classes that can overshadow everyone else by blowing their load all at once. Which I might also have said before.




This may be true, but I haven't noticed that it is a contentious issue.

RC


----------



## D.Shaffer

Imaro said:
			
		

> Your comments on 1a don't make sense.  The base assumption, as stated by the designer's, is that characters will be at about 80% capability after every encounter.



Actually, no we dont know this.  We know they have said this about WIZARDS but not about other classes at all.  I also think the subject is getting a bit to clouded, with people using the argument of 'Whether per encounters will fix the one hour day' as a spring board to attack the entire idea of per encounter abilities and try to convince others that they are 'badwronglessfun.' 

As is, I DO believe Per Encounter abilities will solve the 'one hour day' problem, but only in the fact that it will delay it.  In my experience, there is a certain threshhold level of resource expenditure which will cause a party to retreat and rest for the day.  As long as they do not go below this threshhold, they will continue on.  By switching certain resources to a rechargeable model, this slows down the rate of resource expenditure and thus delays the average point at which the threshhold level is reached.  

Note, this isnt the ONLY way to decrease the time until threshhold is reached, but it will do so. However, which of these methods is superior will fall down to opinion and playstyle.  For my prefered playstyle, I prefer per encounter abilities, so I welcome a shift in that direction.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You have Problem A using System 3.  I say that I can cure Problem A by using System 4.  It therefore follows that I believe that the differences between Systems 3 and 4 can resolve Problem A.
> 
> In order to determine whether or not this claim is likely to be true, we need to examine the factors that are known to be different between Systems 3 and 4.  Factors that remain the same between both systems are not relevant to such an analysis.  _They may be very, very relevant to other aspects of gameplay_, but not to such an analysis.
> 
> Earlier on, both Gizmo33 and I said that nerfing the means to avoid encounters, while making encounters a possible consequence of resting, would deal with the "9-9:30 adventuring day" problem.  IOW, we both made a strong claim that a solution to the problem exists within the current ruleset, merely by changing the expectations of those playing the game who are experiencing this problem.
> 
> Your additions to my analysis, along with Hong's statement that there is more than one way to have fun in an encounter, are both strong claims that a solution to the problem exists within the current ruleset, merely by changing the expectations of those playing the game who are experiencing this problem.  However, unless there is something I missed in your analysis is not present in the current model, your additions to my analysis (1) are indicative of methods in any model that could resolve the problem, and (2) are not indicative of any effects that the changing model has over the current model.
> 
> In order to determine whether Wyatt's claim is correct, therefore, they are irrelevant.  _Not irrelevant to the game, or good DMing, or anything else._  My statement that you could use wandering monsters and nerf Rope Trick and Teleport are also relevant to solving the "9-9:15 adventuring day" problem, but not relevant to the discussion of whether or not Wyatt's claim re: per-encounter abilities in 4e will, in fact, solve this problem.
> 
> Relevance is based on context.
> 
> 
> RC



But the question is whether or not what you reduce the problem to remains relevant enough to model reality. Further, it completely ignores the depletion of resources within an encounter.

Consider, for a moment, the following scenario:

In one day, you have one fight. During that fight, the party expends 60% of its resources. During that fight, both parties expended significant resources, and as the encounter continued, the party was left with fewer and fewer options. It was difficult for them to overcome their enemies in this fight, as shown by the resources expended during the course of the battle. The PCs honestly don't know if they'll survive this one and reach the inn to play drinking games and make dwarf jokes this time. The wizard is down to chucking his weakest spells, and the cleric's healing magic is all but exhausted. The ranger takes an unlucky hit and goes down, and the fighter is down to a quarter of his hit-point total.

And then, at the end of round 13, the fighter crits and drops the BBEG with a lucky swing. Everyone lets out a cheer, for the heroes have won! The heroes are bloodied, bruised, but not beaten. The ranger is dropped, but the cleric managed to stabilize him. He'll survive to fight another day.

My challenge to you:

Identify whether this encounter was run using a per-encounter resource system or a per-day resource system.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course you have.  But it remains an unsupported statement,




What, so you think people _will_ suddenly start having six dozen fights before lunch?




> whereas the converse view has been massively supported.




This is clearly a new meaning of "massive support" that I wasn't aware of before.




> This may be true, but I haven't noticed that it is a contentious issue.




Yes, I've noticed you don't notice a few things.


----------



## Jackelope King

And a thought I had while typing that last response:

We've been hearing a lot about "thresholds" from the designers. What if the per-encounter system is limited in so far as healing is concerned because the healer's at will/per-encounter healing can only bring a character up to the cap for what his current threshold is, while the per-day healing can bringing up to cap for the next threshold? That would certainly be a solution to "the party always being at full hit points".


----------



## Merlion

Imaro said:
			
		

> Your comments on 1a don't make sense. The base assumption, as stated by the designer's, is that characters will be at about 80% capability after every encounter





As far as I am aware, the only thing the designers have stated involving 80% resources is that a wizard who has used up all of his per-day vancian spells will be at 80%


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> My challenge to you:
> 
> Identify whether this encounter was run using a per-encounter resource system or a per-day resource system.




Insufficient information.

However, there is enough information to know that it was a _significant_ battle.

OTOH, since I have stated repeatedly (as have Gizmo33 and others) that the per-encounter model is likely to decrease the range of encounters to win/lose scenarios, it is telling that your example is a win/lose scenario.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Simply targetting per-day resources no longer raises the mechanical challenge beyond the threshold of significance. You need either to target long-term resources (possibly ability damage) or permanent resources (such as character life).




Consider, for a moment, the following scenario:

In one day, you have one fight. During that fight, the party expends 20% of its resources. 

You know several things about this fight automatically.  It was over 90% likely to use per-encounter resources.  Those resources regenerated at the end of the fight.  Because of the resource usage, the fight would have been at least somewhat significant in any edition from OD&D up to and including 3.5.  Unless there is some other factor to make it significant, it will not be so in 4.0.

RC


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OTOH, since I have stated repeatedly (as have Gizmo33 and others) that the per-encounter model is likely to decrease the range of encounters to win/lose scenarios, it is telling that your example is a win/lose scenario.




How about the range of non-boring encounters?


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OTOH, since I have stated repeatedly (as have Gizmo33 and others) that the per-encounter model is likely to decrease the range of encounters to win/lose scenarios, it is telling that your example is a win/lose scenario.
> RC





How is this different from now?


----------



## Imaro

Merlion said:
			
		

> As far as I am aware, the only thing the designers have stated involving 80% resources is that a wizard who has used up all of his per-day vancian spells will be at 80%




Yo know this is getting petty...does anyone know exactly what 4e will entail...anyone.  Ok then when discussing it it is necessary to extrapoilate from what we've been told.  I mean the whole "We don't know for sure" argument doesn't predicate not disscussing in a reasonable context what has been stated.

We've also been told SW saga is a preview for 4e and I've had plenty of experience with that game and ran into certain problems which I stated earlier in the thread and even gave examples of others playing and running into the same issues.  Issues which correlate to what we are discussing.


----------



## hong

Merlion said:
			
		

> How is this different from now?



 The difference is that now, you're supposed to have a bunch of boring encounters first, before being killed. It's all about the anticipation.


----------



## Imaro

Merlion said:
			
		

> How is this different from now?





I stated this above but I'll state it again...

Per-day is significant in that the ramifications, even if it isn't win/loose causes the players to manage resources on a long-term basis.

Per-encounter is only significant if the specific encounter is hard enough(win/loose) where resource management within that specific encounter is necessary.

The funny thing is I've seen this play out in Star Wars and cited examples where others who played had the same experience.


----------



## Imaro

hong said:
			
		

> The difference is that now, you're supposed to have a bunch of boring encounters first, before being killed. It's all about the anticipation.




I mean if we go with your solution you should just have all those story resources for impact so no encounter will be boring.  Right?


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Insufficient information.



Precisely. During the time-frame of an encounter, there is no magical loss of interest/coolness/fun/whatever. Each encounter can still be significant and fun.




> Consider, for a moment, the following scenario:
> 
> In one day, you have one fight. During that fight, the party expends 20% of its resources.
> 
> You know several things about this fight automatically.  It was over 90% likely to use per-encounter resources.



This does not logically follow. It is equally likely to have occured under a per-day resource system. There is no logical connection between a small expenditure of resources and a per-encounter model _as of the last round of the encounter_.



> Those resources regenerated at the end of the fight.  Because of the resource usage, the fight would have been at least somewhat significant in any edition from OD&D up to and including 3.5.  Unless there is some other factor to make it significant, it will not be so in 4.0.
> 
> RC



You have insufficent information to claim that all resources will regenerate. From what we've ready, not all resources will regenerate. Thus, this conclusion you reach is invalid.


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> I mean if we go with your solution you should just have all those story resources for impact so no encounter will be boring.  Right?



 You could do that. Or you could accept that this is putting the cart before the horse, and design your ruleset so you don't have 3 boring encounters per day to make interesting.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> My challenge to you:
> 
> Identify whether this encounter was run using a per-encounter resource system or a per-day resource system.




My answer:  per-encounter.

If it were per-day the DM wouldn't have felt compelled to make the encounter a life-or-death struggle in order to make it interesting.  

For extra credit I'll also say that the DM fudges dice reguarly because for every "woohoo we got lucky and won" situation that occurs, those same characters are killed a week later by a "uh-oh, we got unlucky and lost".  The DM has fixed this through fudging.


----------



## Merlion

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yo know this is getting petty...does anyone know exactly what 4e will entail...anyone.  Ok then when discussing it it is necessary to extrapoilate from what we've been told.  I mean the whole "We don't know for sure" argument doesn't predicate not disscussing in a reasonable context what has been stated.
> 
> We've also been told SW saga is a preview for 4e and I've had plenty of experience with that game and ran into certain problems which I stated earlier in the thread and even gave examples of others playing and running into the same issues.  Issues which correlate to what we are discussing.





  You made a statement that the designers have said its assumed PCs will be down to 80% after each encounter. I said, as far as I know, they have said that a Wizard who uses all his Vancian spells will be down to 80%. Two different things, but similar enough that they might be confused or conflated.

  How is mentioning the fact "petty?"


----------



## Merlion

hong said:
			
		

> The difference is that now, you're supposed to have a bunch of boring encounters first, before being killed. It's all about the anticipation.






  Ahh ok. Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Orange Kitten.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> How is this different from now?




In terms of the 9-9:15 problem?  AFAICT it isn't.  Which is rather the point.

In terms of the range of significant encounters using the mechanical threshold?  It narrows the mechanical threshold by quite a large margin if you are not experiencing the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem already.  

If you examine the CR/EL system, it is quite clear that an encounter that the party can clearly (even easily) beat is still significant because of the expenditure of resources that do not instantly renew.

Some groups, to hedge their bets, decided that they could use all their resources in a few battles, rest, and then repeat.  This created the double problem that we call the "9-9:15 adventuring day".  The problems caused by this are (1) the problem with verisimilitude, and (2) it causes any encounter that doesn't challenge full resources to become mechanically insignificant.

Wyatt's solution, AFAICT, is to simply give the benefits of resting without requiring resting.  On the surface, this targets (1), but not (2), which is the far more significant problem.  Moreover, because it makes the problems caused by the 9-9:15 adventuring day the de facto baseline of the game, it means that DMs not experiencing these problems get the joy of doing so.  Finally, because the entire baseline has moved, it encourages DMs to do exactly what the DMs having the 9-9:15 problem eventually do -- set up every encounter to challenge a party at full resources.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> My answer:  per-encounter.
> 
> If it were per-day the DM wouldn't have felt compelled to make the encounter a life-or-death struggle in order to make it interesting.



So there has never been in the history of per-day resource management a life-or-death struggle? Yes or no.



> For extra credit I'll also say that the DM fudges dice reguarly because for every "woohoo we got lucky and won" situation that occurs, those same characters are killed a week later by a "uh-oh, we got unlucky and lost".  The DM has fixed this through fudging.



Your implication is interesting. How does it support your conclusion that this is "per-encounter" then? Or is this meant to be an insult?


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Finally, because the entire baseline has moved, it encourages DMs to do exactly what the DMs having the 9-9:15 problem eventually do -- set up every encounter to challenge a party at full resources.




1. To be precise, every encounter which is meant to be a risky challenge.

2. And this is a problem, why?


----------



## Merlion

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In terms of the 9-9:15 problem?  AFAICT it isn't.  Which is rather the point.
> 
> In terms of the range of significant encounters using the mechanical threshold?  It narrows the mechanical threshold by quite a large margin if you are not experiencing the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem already.
> 
> If you examine the CR/EL system, it is quite clear that an encounter that the party can clearly (even easily) beat is still significant because of the expenditure of resources that do not instantly renew.
> 
> Some groups, to hedge their bets, decided that they could use all their resources in a few battles, rest, and then repeat.  This created the double problem that we call the "9-9:15 adventuring day".  The problems caused by this are (1) the problem with verisimilitude, and (2) it causes any encounter that doesn't challenge full resources to become mechanically insignificant.
> 
> Wyatt's solution, AFAICT, is to simply give the benefits of resting without requiring resting.  On the surface, this targets (1), but not (2), which is the far more significant problem.  Moreover, because it makes the problems caused by the 9-9:15 adventuring day the de facto baseline of the game, it means that DMs not experiencing these problems get the joy of doing so.  Finally, because the entire baseline has moved, it encourages DMs to do exactly what the DMs having the 9-9:15 problem eventually do -- set up every encounter to challenge a party at full resources.
> 
> 
> RC






 Hmmm. Well I havent been reading every post for a while, but just a few things I seem to notice.

1) what constitutes a "significant" encounter is mostly a matter of opinion.

2) a party that recharges its per encounter abilities isnt necessarily at full resources

3) it still seems to me that per-encounter abilities will make it easier for parties who want to continue on as long as possible to do so, without handicaping certain classes over others, without having to take a full 8 hours rest etc

4) parties that insist on having full resources at all times arent going to be impacted one way or the others.


  It also seems like most who dislike the per-encounter deal arent calling it imbalanced they just 1) don't think it solves the problem it sets out to solve and 2) are afraid it will take away the resource management aspects they enjoy.

  Personally, the at-will and per-encounter abilities are a good thing to me if only because they make the magic system more in line with how I see magic working and how it is often depicted. I also think it will improve the 9-915 thing for those who see it as a problem or something they are forced into. And their will still be resource management.


----------



## gizmo33

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yo know this is getting petty...does anyone know exactly what 4e will entail...anyone.




We don't know anything about 4E, therefore Vancian magic *could* be the coolest magic system anyone has ever seen when combined with the other 4E rules.  But then again the "we don't know anything" idea is only used to selectively support one side of the argument.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Precisely. During the time-frame of an encounter, there is no magical loss of interest/coolness/fun/whatever. Each encounter can still be significant and fun.




Sure.....as Imaro said,

Per-day is significant in that the ramifications, even if it isn't win/loose causes the players to manage resources on a long-term basis.

Per-encounter is only significant if the specific encounter is hard enough(win/loose) where resource management within that specific encounter is necessary.​
But we've already all agreed with this, long, long ago (as soon as it was brought up AFAIK).  Your example doesn't change what Imaro said, above.  



> This does not logically follow. It is equally likely to have occured under a per-day resource system. There is no logical connection between a small expenditure of resources and a per-encounter model _as of the last round of the encounter_.




Sure there is.  Per-day resources, because they do not automatically renew, are automatically more important to retain (if possible) than per-encounter resources.  Therefore, any battle where there is not significant chance of loss will overwhelmingly favor the use of per-encounter resources vs. per-day resources.  Simply put, using per-day resources under such a system, when you do not have to, is foolish.



> You have insufficent information to claim that all resources will regenerate. From what we've ready, not all resources will regenerate. Thus, this conclusion you reach is invalid.




Again, Imaro has already answered this:

when discussing it it is necessary to extrapoilate from what we've been told. I mean the whole "We don't know for sure" argument doesn't predicate not disscussing in a reasonable context what has been stated.​
Let me also add that, while I hope that I am wrong, "You might be wrong if they don't do what their playtest reports, blogs, and news indicates they are doing" is a very, very good reason for me to continue to press the point.  If any WotC designer is reading this thread, and changes are made to curtail the problems being presented, that is a _very, very good thing_.

I would prefer that WotC makes me wrong than makes me right.


RC


----------



## gizmo33

Merlion said:
			
		

> 1) what constitutes a "significant" encounter is mostly a matter of opinion.




Why not apply this to Wyatt's reasoning then?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> Hmmm. Well I havent been reading every post for a while, but just a few things I seem to notice.




You should go back and read that part of the discussion, then.  Your points (1) and (2) have been discussed to death.  Or don't, because even without doing so, you seem to understand the point that Gizmo33, myself, and others are trying to make (see below).

Your point (3) is factual under any system.  If the party is going to continue without full resources it will do so.  Class balance may be positively affected (or not).  I think it depends very much on what abilities fall under which time-frame to renew.

Your point (4), "parties that insist on having full resources at all times arent going to be impacted one way or the others" is the point that Gizmo33, Imaro, myself, and others have been trying to make.  Wyatt's blog statement that this model will fix the "9-9:15 adventuring day" is simply wrong.

You are further correct when you say:



> It also seems like most who dislike the per-encounter deal arent calling it imbalanced they just 1) don't think it solves the problem it sets out to solve and 2) are afraid it will take away the resource management aspects they enjoy.




So, it seems as though you and I, at least, are now on the same page regarding this issue.


RC


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> So there has never been in the history of per-day resource management a life-or-death struggle? Yes or no.




There has, in the history of per-day resource manage, been life-or-death struggles.  (I thought I would answer explicitly since saying "no" to a "never" question can be confusing.)



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Your implication is interesting. How does it support your conclusion that this is "per-encounter" then? Or is this meant to be an insult?




Insult about what?  I already gave the reasoning for why I concluded "per-encounter" resources.  Was this a trick question?


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure.....as Imaro said,
> 
> Per-day is significant in that the ramifications, even if it isn't win/loose causes the players to manage resources on a long-term basis.
> 
> Per-encounter is only significant if the specific encounter is hard enough(win/loose) where resource management within that specific encounter is necessary.​
> But we've already all agreed with this, long, long ago (as soon as it was brought up AFAIK).  Your example doesn't change what Imaro said, above.



Resource management withing a given encounter is _always_ necessary, hence the flaw in Imaro's argument.



> Sure there is.  Per-day resources, because they do not automatically renew, are automatically more important to retain (if possible) than per-encounter resources.  Therefore, any battle where there is not significant chance of loss will overwhelmingly favor the use of per-encounter resources vs. per-day resources.  Simply put, using per-day resources under such a system, when you do not have to, is foolish.



That's the case in either system, however. It's foolish for the wizard to cast a spell when the fighter can just kill the enemy anyway.

However: is it more fun for the wizard to twiddle his thumbs and wait for the fighter? Or should the wizard always have the option to do something at least moderately fun throughout the day?

I think the popularity of the warlock class is fair support for the latter.



> Again, Imaro has already answered this:
> 
> when discussing it it is necessary to extrapoilate from what we've been told. I mean the whole "We don't know for sure" argument doesn't predicate not disscussing in a reasonable context what has been stated.​
> Let me also add that, while I hope that I am wrong, "You might be wrong if they don't do what their playtest reports, blogs, and news indicates they are doing" is a very, very good reason for me to continue to press the point.  If any WotC designer is reading this thread, and changes are made to curtail the problems being presented, that is a _very, very good thing_.
> 
> I would prefer that WotC makes me wrong than makes me right.
> 
> 
> RC



Fair enough. However, from what we know, the system will still include per-day resources. If this is the case, why are we having this discussion?


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> There has, in the history of per-day resource manage, been life-or-death struggles.  (I thought I would answer explicitly since saying "no" to a "never" question can be confusing.)



Fair enough 

This, however, contradicts your claim that something being a life or death struggle is definitively indicative of a per-encounter resource management system, since by your own admission, it is also a feature found in per-day resource management systems.



> Insult about what?  I already gave the reasoning for why I concluded "per-encounter" resources.  Was this a trick question?



To clarify, do you believe that a DM fudging dice is indicative of a per-encounter resource management? If so, how?


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> There has, in the history of per-day resource manage, been life-or-death struggles.  (I thought I would answer explicitly since saying "no" to a "never" question can be confusing.)
> 
> 
> 
> Insult about what?  I already gave the reasoning for why I concluded "per-encounter" resources.  Was this a trick question?



 No, it was just that your reasoning makes no sense at all.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Your point (4), "parties that insist on having full resources at all times arent going to be impacted one way or the others" is the point that Gizmo33, Imaro, myself, and others have been trying to make.  Wyatt's blog statement that this model will fix the "9-9:15 adventuring day" is simply wrong.




Why?


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Fair enough. However, from what we know, the system will still include per-day resources. If this is the case, why are we having this discussion?




Largely because "If A then B" logic does not appear to be well understood.  The argument that A implies B does not become invalid if A is proven to be false.  "If you play DnD, then you are playing an RPG" does not become a false statement if it turns out that you do not play DnD.

If WotC chooses to change it's resource model for 4E to per-week resources, it does not invalidate the reasoning on this thread.  All it invalidates is a thread about "here's what *will* happen with 4E" which is not really what most people have been talking about.  Those people who can't seem to differentiate the hypothetical situations being discussed here with whatever actual reality there will be with 4E are missing the point.


----------



## Jackelope King

RC,

I'm going to ask you to clarify your position by responding to this question:

_Would you claim that one of the problems you have with a hypothetical per-encounter system would be the loss of an attrition-based, per-day resource management system, which serves to affect the choices players make in light of the resources their characters have/have lost?_


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> No, it was just that your reasoning makes no sense at all.




None?  Is this more of that character building you were talking about?  Are your attention requirements a daily or "per-encounter" resource?


----------



## D.Shaffer

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yo know this is getting petty...does anyone know exactly what 4e will entail...anyone.  Ok then when discussing it it is necessary to extrapoilate from what we've been told.  I mean the whole "We don't know for sure" argument doesn't predicate not disscussing in a reasonable context what has been stated.



It's not petty at all. In fact, he made the same correction I did. 

Even in 3rd edition, the classes are a mix of At Will and Per Day abilities, with a varying mix of the two.  With that known, what is more likely? That 4th ed classes will all share the EXACT same mix of per day, per encounter, and at will abilities (Thus, everyone being at 80% when they use all their per day abilities), or that a use of all their per day abilities will leave them at different levels of resource depletion?


----------



## Merlion

RavenCrowking said:
			
		

> Your point (4), "parties that insist on having full resources at all times arent going to be impacted one way or the others" is the point that Gizmo33, Imaro, myself, and others have been trying to make. Wyatt's blog statement that this model will fix the "9-9:15 adventuring day" is simply wrong.





  You misunderstand. What I mean is, some parties choose to inflict the 9-915 thing on themselves, because they insist on having 100% resources at all times. They dont see it as a problem, and will play this way regardless of the system.

For the ones that consider it a problem, its a problem for them because they dont necessarily feel the need to be at 100% at all times, but are forced to rest far more frequently because of the disparity between classes. The fact that the casters, and especially wizards, loose their % effectivness faster and more totally than other classes.

For these groups, casters having per encounter and at will abilities in addition to their daily spells will allow them to keep going with everyone at a more similar level of expenditure/ability.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> This, however, contradicts your claim that something being a life or death struggle is definitively indicative of a per-encounter resource management system, since by your own admission, it is also a feature found in per-day resource management systems.




So it was a trick question!       I was just choosing a probable answer, there's no reason it would have to be that way.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> To clarify, do you believe that a DM fudging dice is indicative of a per-encounter resource management? If so, how?




IMO Fudging dice is indicative of a "I have to make the players feel like they could be killed by the encounter" approach to encounters.  The rest is based on connecting the various dots, it hearkens back to earlier points I've tried to make.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> None?  Is this more of that character building you were talking about?  Are your attention requirements a daily or "per-encounter" resource?



 Actually, it's a statement of fact. As in, your reasoning why the given example had to be per-encounter made no sense at all.

For extra credit, I'll also say that DMs who say they don't design encounters in a per-day setup to be life-or-death because a full-strength party would easily win, in the knowledge that the party will _not_ be at full strength when they fight that actual battle, are deluding themselves.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Resource management withing a given encounter is _always_ necessary, hence the flaw in Imaro's argument.




You conflate two forms of resource management which you know have significant differences.  Resource management within an encounter that has no effect outside that encounter, and which has no win/lose element, has been amply and repeatedly demonstrated.  

I hope you don't take it wrong when I address the ad infinitum ad nauseum requests to demonstrate the same by saying simply "this has been answered upthread, and has not been successfully refuted since."  Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy.  Simply repeating the same question, while ignoring the response, is a form of argument by assertion.



> However: is it more fun for the wizard to twiddle his thumbs and wait for the fighter? Or should the wizard always have the option to do something at least moderately fun throughout the day?




That is a seperate question than the affect of the per-encounter system on the 9-9:15 adventuring day, and (as I and others have stated repeatedly) if the redesign aids in this without introducing a host of other problems, that would be a good thing.



> Fair enough. However, from what we know, the system will still include per-day resources. If this is the case, why are we having this discussion?




Again, if you read the thread, this has already been amply answered.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> _Would you claim that one of the problems you have with a hypothetical per-encounter system would be the loss of an attrition-based, per-day resource management system, which serves to affect the choices players make in light of the resources their characters have/have lost?_




Yes.


----------



## Imaro

To:Jackelope & Hong...

The problem with assuming that the 9-9:15 problem will be solved by per-encounter is this...

If...

A.) If, as has been suggested, I am able to throw more "significant" encounters in terms of in-combat resource expenditure(thus life/death) type of encounters then the average of PC's being killed or even a TPK rises significantly with each encounter(law of averges).  The PC's will always be at more risk than a single monster encounter for dying, having more "significant" encounters, as defined above, raises this exponentially.  And in fact can end up putting a longer halt on gameplay than a days' rest(no ressurection at lower levels).

B.) If I am throwing "insignificant" encounters at them, well first I can do the same in 3e by having monsters with way lower CR's than the characters.  But then this leads to(as has been defined by Hong) numerous boring encounters.  So what exactly has been accomplished by per-encounter abilities to solve the 9-9:15 problem?  It seems like a smokescreen that confuses the issue but results in nothing.

C.) In a per-day abilities scenario I can make every encounter significant in the fact that it will affect later competency without making it life/death.  I cannot accomplish this with a per-encounter abilities model and thus another problem arises, one of granularity.  In the per-encounter model there is no granularity in my encounter design, it is either a live/die encounter where I have built it so that they're in-combat resources are all expected to be used or an insignificant encounter where only per-encounter and at-will abilities should be used.  

Another problem that arises in the mixed abilities scenario is that with per-day abilities and encounters that use a certain percentage of resources I am better equiped to know what my player's should be capable of facing within a cetain range of error.  If I have a 7 encounter dungeon and have 4 encounters that take 10% of their resources, 2 more that take 15% of their resources and then 1 more at 20%, it doesn't matter what order I put them in as they equal out to 90%(10% cushion just in case) of the character's resources being expended.   In the mixed abilities scenario my player's could easily think an encounter is the main one, blow their per-day abilities and face almost certain death in the next significant encounter.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That is a seperate question than the affect of the per-encounter system on the 9-9:15 adventuring day



My appologies, then. I was not aware that the 9-9:15 adventuring day was the focus of the thread. My understanding of the thread was based on what the OP wrote:



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.
> 
> I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.
> 
> So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?
> 
> I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?



and I was responding to the discussion about the whole of the system in light of this and other initial thoughts about the topic, and not the narrower focus on the 9-9:15 adventuring day. You have my appologies.

EDIT: And thank you for responding to my question. If you like, to avoid dragging this thread's de facto topic off-course, we could move this to a side topic.


----------



## Imaro

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> It's not petty at all. In fact, he made the same correction I did.
> 
> Even in 3rd edition, the classes are a mix of At Will and Per Day abilities, with a varying mix of the two.  With that known, what is more likely? That 4th ed classes will all share the EXACT same mix of per day, per encounter, and at will abilities (Thus, everyone being at 80% when they use all their per day abilities), or that a use of all their per day abilities will leave them at different levels of resource depletion?




Uhm...I would say them all being at 80%, for balance reasons would make more sense.  Now I could see that balanced percentage being achieved in different ways through different abilities but what I don't see is all of us expending our per-day abilities and suddenly the wizard is at 80%...the fighter at 20%...the rogue at 100% and the cleric at 10% efficiency.


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> To:Jackelope & Hong...
> 
> The problem with assuming that the 9-9:15 problem will be solved by per-encounter is this...
> 
> If...
> 
> A.) If, as has been suggested, I am able to throw more "significant" encounters in terms of in-combat resource expenditure(thus life/death) type of encounters then the average of PC's being killed or even a TPK rises significantly with each encounter(law of averges).  The PC's will always be at more risk than a single monster encounter for dying, having more "significant" encounters, as defined above, raises this exponentially.  And in fact can end up putting a longer halt on gameplay than a days' rest(no ressurection at lower levels).




This can be addressed by other methods, which all basically come down to controlling the variability of outcomes within the encounter. Eg, if there are fewer instakill spells, then you no longer have to worry about a natural 1 killing someone regardless of how healthy they are. Or you can have a fate point/hero point system to do the same thing.



> C.) In a per-day abilities scenario I can make every encounter significant in the fact that it will affect later competency without making it life/death.




Regardless, the whole idea of per-day resources is that, once per day, you will still have at least one life-or-death encounter. Now that encounter may be risky only because you hit it when you're depleted, but that doesn't change the fact that it's risky.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Merlion said:
			
		

> some parties choose to inflict the 9-915 thing on themselves, because they insist on having 100% resources at all times. They dont see it as a problem, and will play this way regardless of the system.




Agreed.



> For the ones that consider it a problem, its a problem for them because they dont necessarily feel the need to be at 100% at all times, but are forced to rest far more frequently because of the disparity between classes. The fact that the casters, and especially wizards, loose their % effectivness faster and more totally than other classes.




Disagree, although I see where you are coming from.

We've already discussed the wizard's effectiveness without spells, and AFAICT there is no mechanical difference between a crossbow and a "wizard power" that acts exactly like a crossbow.

The party doesn't rest because the wizard player has nothing to do, AFAICT, but because _what the wizard can do is significant to the party as a whole_.

So, while I agree that there is a disparity between class resources, both in terms of how good they are and how often they can be used, I disagree that this has nothing to do with management of significant resources (the party being at X% before resting).

I am also, I admit, skeptical of the claim that party resources can be balanced both in terms of how good they are and how often they can get used, while still maintaining the flavour and party roles that makes having more than one class mean having more than one type of experience in the game.

RC


----------



## Imaro

hong said:
			
		

> This can be addressed by other methods, which all basically come down to controlling the variability of outcomes within the encounter. Eg, if there are fewer instakill spells, then you no longer have to worry about a natural 1 killing someone regardless of how healthy they are. Or you can have a fate point/hero point system to do the same thing.




So...now you're making it into one of those boring fights you talked about earlier through metagame means?  I feel like you are moving your logic and reasoning back and forth.





			
				hong said:
			
		

> Regardless, the whole idea of per-day resources is that, once per day, you will still have at least one life-or-death encounter. Now that encounter may be risky only because you hit it when you're depleted, but that doesn't change the fact that it's risky.




No, when you plan the encounter...before play begins to make it "risky" would be to set it at a level where the use of per-day abilities would be a strong or even neccessary factor in achieving victory.  Thus if the per-day abilities are expended before reaching that encounter then it is now a deadly encounter.  Without a clear identifier(metagame or in-game to determine which is the "significant" encounter...you know like in star wars sith lord=significant encounter, stormtrooper=/=significant encounter) it's randomness, and randomness never favors the PC's.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> My appologies, then. I was not aware that the 9-9:15 adventuring day was the focus of the thread. My understanding of the thread was based on what the OP wrote:




 

I may be conflating threads, or I may be more concerned about the "side discussion" opened up by Gizmo33.  It may be that we are talking at cross-purposes.





> EDIT: And thank you for responding to my question. If you like, to avoid dragging this thread's de facto topic off-course, we could move this to a side topic.




Sure.


RC


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes.



Jog my memory a bit --this thread has gotten big-- are you saying that you think the loss, or at least deemphasis, of  'operational level resource management', as Celebrim called it, is a bad design choice for the, or simply bad with regard to your prefered style of play?

Because if it's the former, what do make of the success of systems that remove or limit resource management, like Mutants and Masterminds?

It's its the latter, well, yeah, it looks like some of the 4E changes are going to have a negative impact on a strategic aspect of play you enjoy. So time to make with the new house rules...


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> For extra credit, I'll also say that DMs who say they don't design encounters in a per-day setup to be life-or-death because a full-strength party would easily win, in the knowledge that the party will _not_ be at full strength when they fight that actual battle, are deluding themselves.




But I do use life-or-death encounters in a daily resource game, Jakelope already asked about this.  Otherwise I don't follow what you're saying (which is the less argumentative version of "what you're saying makes no sense").  I don't know what you mean by "in the knowledge".


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> So...now you're making it into one of those boring fights you talked about earlier through metagame means?  I feel like you are moving your logic and reasoning back and forth.




Since when has "reducing variability" meant "boring"? The fight is still risky, in that if the players are dumb, they can get their butts kicked. This is entirely compatible with saying that if the players are _unlucky_, they won't find themselves suddenly in a hole they can't get out of. Heck, APs are often touted as one of the ways to encourage people to do _more_ wild, heroic stunts than they would otherwise. (Personally I reckon they're better used as insurance, but that's another topic.)




> No, when you plan the encounter...before play begins to make it "risky" would be to set it at a level where the use of per-day abilities would be a strong or even neccessary factor in achieving victory.  Thus if the per-day abilities are expended before reaching that encounter then it is now a deadly encounter.  Without a clear identifier(metagame or in-game to determine which is the "significant" encounter...you know like in star wars sith lord=significant encounter, stormtrooper=/=significant encounter) it's randomness, and randomness never favors the PC's.




Whereas this sounds like you're basically telegraphing to your players "this fight is unimportant except to wear you down".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> Jog my memory a bit --this thread has gotten big-- are you saying that you think the loss, or at least deemphasis, of  'operational level resource management', as Celebrim called it, is a bad design choice for the, or simply bad with regard to your prefered style of play?




I believe that it is bad with regard for my preferred style of play, and that (moreover) I believe that it is bad for D&D.  

I think that the play experience that has made D&D the leader in the industry will be damaged.  I do not think D&D should play like Mutants and Masterminds (which is, however, a fine system for its genre).  Time will tell on that one.

In addition, I think that this change will not appreciably affect the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem once players understand the new system.



> So time to make with the new house rules...




More likely, time to stick with the old....

....or modify the old to take into account any bits of design I like.....


RC


----------



## TwoSix

Imaro said:
			
		

> C.) In a per-day abilities scenario I can make every encounter significant in the fact that it will affect later competency without making it life/death.  I cannot accomplish this with a per-encounter abilities model and thus another problem arises, one of granularity.  In the per-encounter model there is no granularity in my encounter design, it is either a live/die encounter where I have built it so that they're in-combat resources are all expected to be used or an insignificant encounter where only per-encounter and at-will abilities should be used.




Of course there can be.  It's just the simple "wandering monster" scenario that doesn't work.  Each encounter instead is planned to have a certain outcome that affects later situations based on the relative success of the encounter.  Success isn't based on the resources you expend, it's based on your achievement of tactical and strategic objectives.


----------



## Raven Crowking

TwoSix said:
			
		

> Of course there can be.  It's just the simple "wandering monster" scenario that doesn't work.




So, we can at least agree that this model removes something that worked from previous editions.  That's a start.    



> Each encounter instead is planned to have a certain outcome that affects later situations based on the relative success of the encounter.  Success isn't based on the resources you expend, it's based on your achievement of tactical and strategic objectives.




If this was the case for the vast majority of DMs, then that could be done with 4 goblins vs. a 10th level party in 3.5, and the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem wouldn't exist.  If the success of the edition is based upon the average DM framing each encounter in terms of conditions of relative success, I predict that there will be a problem.

RC


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, we can at least agree that this model removes something that worked from previous editions.




For certain values of "worked" anyway.




> If this was the case for the vast majority of DMs, then that could be done with 4 goblins vs. a 10th level party in 3.5, and the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem wouldn't exist.




... to be replaced with the 12-goblins-before-breakfast problem.


----------



## Imaro

This is like going in an endless circle...


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I can only get through this a step at a time.  Either it is or isn't true - then once there is consensus on that we can get down to what the significance is.  No sense in being cagey about it.  Being different or not different from 3E shouldn't prevent anyone from answering the question.  Not wanting to reason through the consequences may perhaps, but that's not a really fair assessment of the situation anymore is it?



No one is being cagey - the question cannot be answered because the details of 4E are not known. But for the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to grant for the moment that your assumption might be true, and there will be a significant chance of PC death in many 4E encounters.

Now, how is that any different from 3E?



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> By chance you mean .0001%?



The chance is considerably higher than .0001%, and you know it.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Again, this is equivocating - I've tried to point out "significant chance" although I continue to not hear anything about what folks would consider a reasonable chance of death for a given encounter.  We know what the resource expenditure for an EL X encounter is - that's 25%, right?



25% is the _expected_ resource expenditure. But I'm sure we also know that things can vary considerably from expectations. Indeed, this fact is incorporated into the design, and it's part of what makes the game fun.

A hill giant is a CR 7 creature which attacks twice per round for 2d8+10 damage. That is a lot of damage to a 7th level party. On average, it's probably over one-quarter of the fighter's hit points per hit, probably well over a third of the rogue's, and probably about half the wizard's (which means he's capable of dropping the wizard in one round). There is a significant chance of PC death in that encounter - the giant is fully capable of killing a PC with just a bit of luck on his part - and we're talking about a bog-standard 3E encounter here with the party going in at full strength and no special disadvantages for the PCs in the fight from the battlefield or the giant ambushing them, etc.

So I'm not seeing the difference between your proposed 4E scenario and the way 3E already is.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Imaro said:
			
		

> Your comments on 1a don't make sense.  The base assumption, as stated by the designer's, is that characters will be at about 80% capability after every encounter.  We cannot assume that characters will make the mistake of not buying enough amunition, as it is a variable that suggests non-competent players(I can't see a competent player playing an archer and not buying enough arrows to take down an army).
> 
> Second the realm of one-use magic items does not factor because all they do is bring the PC above 80% so by using the 80% or above baseline they are allready factored in.




I'm sorry that you don't follow my argument. 

It is apparent that you probably work under different assumptions to me (the most excessive archer I ever gamed with only had about a hundred arrows... 40-60 was more common. Fighters who also used missile weapons normally only had a quiver of 20 arrows). I've not noticed the statement that you assert was made by designers that characters will be at about 80% capability after every encounter. In my experience of 3e the party might be about 80% capability, but that is unlikely to be evenly distributed amongst PCs. Some will be hurt more than others, for instance.

Nonetheless, RC wanted people to mention anything that was missing in his assessment back in that post. I believe that both the issues I mentioned were unaccounted for and render the conclusions at least partially invalid. Maybe RC doesn't agree, but that's fine. I don't have any axe to grind or need to persuade anyone!

Cheers


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I may be conflating threads, or I may be more concerned about the "side discussion" opened up by Gizmo33.  It may be that we are talking at cross-purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> RC



I'll open up that side-discussion later then, once I get back from lecture.


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As I said, I pared it down as simply as I could to illustrate what I was trying to say.  If you answer the questions honestly, we can proceed.  Otherwise, I fail to see the point of endlessly repeating myself.



Of course everyone is going to answer that they prefer an adventure where they have a chance of failure, rather than a long string of guaranteed wins. But since no one anywhere has said that 4E's per-encounter system will lead to a long string of guaranteed wins for the PCs, your example has no relevance to anything being discussed.

And I resent the implication that my honesty is somehow in question, here.


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Earlier on, both Gizmo33 and I said that nerfing the means to avoid encounters, while making encounters a possible consequence of resting, would deal with the "9-9:30 adventuring day" problem.  IOW, we both made a strong claim that a solution to the problem exists within the current ruleset, merely by changing the expectations of those playing the game who are experiencing this problem.



That's no solution to the problem. 3.X is designed so that the players will _have_ to rest after every four (CR-appropriate) encounters. If they have expended all their resources, they have to rest, and if you don't let them, you basically guarantee a TPK in their next fight.

Your solution will lead to *much* more PC death than any 4E system would.


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> The chance is considerably higher than .0001%, and you know it.




Do I?  I thought we didn't know anything about 4E.  I don't know what the chance is, and since no one will say what it is I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume you know what it is that I know.  Granted, .0001% is a strange number, and I didn't choose it to be accurate, but your follow up on this has a certainty that I don't follow.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> So I'm not seeing the difference between your proposed 4E scenario and the way 3E already is.




I don't think hill giants (or beholders) are necessarily the best representatives of their CRs.  Giants are notorious for having this property due to their strength scores.  In any case, the premise of Wyatt's that the first three encounters of the day are boring because they are not challenging would contradict what you're saying here.  You're saying more than just that the possibility of death exists with the hill giant encounter.  You're saying that it's likely enough that it actually is a factor in how people assess the encounter (ie. "we might die").  

Again, compare this to Wyatt's premise, and then just say that you don't agree with his premise that the first three encounters of a matched CR with the party level are boring.  He must not have hill giants in his campaign.

If we agree on how deadly a CR encounter is for a matched party level, then I think that fact should remain immutable through the conversation.  As it stands now, this "fact" seems to change depending on what argument it is being used to support.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Do I?  I thought we didn't know anything about 4E.  I don't know what the chance is, and since no one will say what it is I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume you know what it is that I know.  Granted, .0001% is a strange number, and I didn't choose it to be accurate, but your follow up on this has a certainty that I don't follow.



Sorry, I thought you were talking about 3E there. I can speak with some certainty on that subject, having played it for eight years   



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't think hill giants (or beholders) are necessarily the best representatives of their CRs.  Giants are notorious for having this property due to their strength scores.  In any case, the premise of Wyatt's that the first three encounters of the day are boring because they are not challenging would contradict what you're saying here.  You're saying more than just that the possibility of death exists with the hill giant encounter.  You're saying that it's likely enough that it actually is a factor in how people assess the encounter (ie. "we might die").



I don't have the "three boring encounters" problem that Wyatt was talking about. I understand that other people do, but that hasn't been my experience in my games.

I _do_ have the "15 minute adventuring day" problem that he talked about (IME it's more like an hour or two, but close enough).

Anyway, if you agree that there is a significant chance of PC death in many 3E encounters, I don't understand how you can level that as a criticism against your proposed model of how 4E is going to work.



> If we agree on how deadly a CR encounter is for a matched party level, then I think that fact should remain immutable through the conversation.  As it stands now, this "fact" seems to change depending on what argument it is being used to support.



Or, you know, you're talking to different people.


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> That's no solution to the problem. 3.X is designed so that the players will _have_ to rest after every four (CR-appropriate) encounters. If they have expended all their resources, they have to rest, and if you don't let them, you basically guarantee a TPK in their next fight.




I agree, I think RC is oversimplifying here what we've both said at length.  Can't blame him, he's had to say the same thing 100 times.

In any case, I can speak for myself: 
>  I don't think nerfing certain spells like rope trick means that the party can no longer evade detection.  It's just that in this thread the anti-resource-management folks have treated resting as a given and said that their monsters typically can't deal with spells like ropetrick.  Thus, there's some room in between the extremes of "always effective" and "completely useless"

>  Secondly, the current system does not mandate that you rest after 4 fights.  It predicts that as a likely outcome.  Spinning in this way IMO is misleading, because it makes it seem more arbitrary and artificial than it is.  It's not as artificial because CR is the very benchmark that you use to measure difficulty and resource usage.  The purpose of CR is to allow the DM to estimate challenges, and if daily resources are an important part of the game system then it only makes logical sense that the impact on them is measured in terms of average result.

>  The resting and recouperating situation has been discussed as a counter to Wyatt's implication that PCs always rest uneventfully and that the choice is meaningless.  Again, there is a lot of ground between the extremes here.  If RC is saying that the decision to rest should carry some risk (and thereby make it meaningful), that's a far cry from advocating TPKs.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Your solution will lead to *much* more PC death than any 4E system would.




"Any 4E system" is way too broad.  Any system would logically include a 4E system that says all PCs will die any time they engage in combat.  And this isn't just a matter of nitpicking your language - The vagueness of this doesn't do much to establish what it is you think 4E will do to prevent higher fatality rates.


----------



## IanArgent

Here's my POV: I "grew up" as a GM running Shadowrun (mainly SR3 - I have yet to run an SR4 session, and I had _just_ started playing when SR2 came along), where there is very little (almost none at all) resource management either in the per day department or even in the per encounter department (as D&D has it). Magic is literally unlimited (as long as you can hack the drain, and with only a little bit of effort, you can sidestep drain for most spells). The only expendable metagame resource is the condition track (AKA damage). There's a small amount of cash/treasure management (do you use your expensive grenades/ammo/whatever in this fight or save it for another one), but D&D has that also.

Based on that, it is entirely possible to run interesting, challenging, and fun encounters that involve _no_ resource management decisions whatsoever. Every encounter teh PCs have the same level of (non-damage, non-explicitly expendable) resources available to them as they did in the previous one. And before you go into the whole "it's a different metagame environment" I have run explicit "dungeon" crawls (bug hunts usually) in SR with a good time had by all.

Also, I'm in agreement with Mr. Mearls - a wizard should *never have* to pull out his crossbow because of game mechanics. He should always have something he can do _as a wizard_ in _every_ fight. As a practical matter, that requires at least per-encounter and probably at-will abilities. I don't like the way the game is balanced now where you give up low-level power for unbalanced power later in the game. (As an aside, I don't care for prestige classes that make you lose caster levels either).


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> >  Secondly, the current system does not mandate that you rest after 4 fights.  It predicts that as a likely outcome.  Spinning in this way IMO is misleading, because it makes it seem more arbitrary and artificial than it is.




Hmmm.



> I exaggerate because it helps to clarify what I'm talking about. As I said to Hong, often times without "exaggeration" people can stonewall over irrelevant issues.


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> Sorry, I thought you were talking about 3E there. I can speak with some certainty on that subject, having played it for eight years




So what is the fatality % for a CR encounter that matches the party level?  Do you think this is universal across all, or even most, of people's DnD games.  Do you think there is a chance that your games, for some reason, are more deadly than average?  



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> I don't have the "three boring encounters" problem that Wyatt was talking about. I understand that other people do, but that hasn't been my experience in my games.




Well, if you understand that other people do then perhaps you'd understand if we can't really make a universal statement about what kind of death rate exists in 3E.  I can follow the reasoning given various initial conditions, but IMO it's not productive to challenge the initial conditions at arbitrary moments.  Take anything I say that assumes that CR=Party Level is not a deadly encounter as applying to a game other than yours.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> I _do_ have the "15 minute adventuring day" problem that he talked about (IME it's more like an hour or two, but close enough).




Given that your CR=Party Level encounters seem to have a high fatality rate (in that they are never boring even when the party is at full resources) then I would think it's pretty logical that you'd have the 15 minute adventuring problem.  I think Wyatt talked about a very similar situation, only his example suggested that the EL would be higher than PC level, but otherwise the effect is the same.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Anyway, if you agree that there is a significant chance of PC death in many 3E encounters, I don't understand how you can level that as a criticism against your proposed model of how 4E is going to work.




I can only agree for your game.  This isn't the case in mine, and not apparently in Wyatts.  It doesn't invalidate what I'm saying because ultimately IMO this aspect of 3E doesn't have a bearing on what I'm saying - or it certainly doesn't discount it.  

Here's how the logic works AFAICT:  as it currently stands your players in your game are facing one tough encounter, which you tell me poses to them a significant risk of dying.  All other things being held equal, by increasing the numbers of such encounters they face, you are increasing, significantly, the chance that they will actually die on any given day.  Either redefine the probability of death (through action points, for example), or use DM cheating, or expect a high turn-over rate in the party.  Those are the possibilities I can think of.  This is a specific case among the more general cases because of your particular circumstances.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Or, you know, you're talking to different people.




I've said things like "if you send an ancient dragon against a 1st level PC, the PCs will die" and the response I often get is "no!  you're wrong because I don't use dragons in my world."

People don't understand well what I mean when I say *if*.  If what I'm saying fails to match your circumstances in it's premise, then it is irrelevant to your particular game.  However it doesn't mean that the reasoning is invalid.  At times perhaps it is hard to keep restating premises, and perhaps there has been some confusion there.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> Hmmm.




Exactly, if his exaggeration had clarified the issue.  If it would have eliminated some minor quibble that RC or I would have made that would not have addressed his main point then I would have accepted it.  (That was the context that was missing from my second quote AFAICT).  However, in this case the exaggeration did exactly what I said *it shouldn't do* in my second quote.  

A case of saying "what if you have to lift 10,000 lbs" is a case where the 10,000 lb situation is an exaggeration, but sufficient for establishing an example of something that can't be lifted.  In this case the exaggeration satisfies the criteria in the premise.  This is not the case in the example that I called out.


----------



## Wormwood

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Here's my POV: I "grew up" as a GM running Shadowrun




I hadn't considered Shadowrun until now---which is strange considering I've played hundreds of sessions!

And yes, I agree completely with your conclusions.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> Of course everyone is going to answer that they prefer an adventure where they have a chance of failure, rather than a long string of guaranteed wins. But since no one anywhere has said that 4E's per-encounter system will lead to a long string of guaranteed wins for the PCs, your example has no relevance to anything being discussed.





If you answer the questions, we can proceed. At that point, relevancy will either be or fail to be demonstrated.  Otherwise, I fail to see the point of endlessly repeating myself.

BTW, I am following this course because I believe that you honestly do not "get" what I am trying to say.  Consequently, I am breaking my reasoning down to even smaller steps, and hoping that you will follow me along these steps, so that we are on the same page in terms of what I mean (but not necessarily on whether or not I am right) at the end of the exercise.  

At that time, my reasoning will either appear sound/relevant to you, or it will not.

(shrug)

Either is fine with me.  The only advantage is that you will be disagreeing or agreeing with what I intend to convey, rather than something else.


RC


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I agree, I think RC is oversimplifying here what we've both said at length.  Can't blame him, he's had to say the same thing 100 times.



That's what happens when you don't listen to the arguments being made against you.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> In any case, I can speak for myself:
> >  I don't think nerfing certain spells like rope trick means that the party can no longer evade detection.  It's just that in this thread the anti-resource-management folks have treated resting as a given and said that their monsters typically can't deal with spells like ropetrick.  Thus, there's some room in between the extremes of "always effective" and "completely useless"



Fine. Say the party can only evade detection while resting some of the time. All this means is that you've moved from guaranteeing a TPK all of the time, to guaranteeing a TPK some of the time. Maybe that's an improvement, but it's not a significant one.

Seriously, what do you expect to happen when you hit the PCs with wandering monsters once all their resources are expended?



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> >  Secondly, the current system does not mandate that you rest after 4 fights.  It predicts that as a likely outcome.  Spinning in this way IMO is misleading, because it makes it seem more arbitrary and artificial than it is.  It's not as artificial because CR is the very benchmark that you use to measure difficulty and resource usage.  The purpose of CR is to allow the DM to estimate challenges, and if daily resources are an important part of the game system then it only makes logical sense that the impact on them is measured in terms of average result.



Yes. And the average result of having four CR-appropriate encounters in 3E is that the PCs will have expended most or all of their resources and need to rest afterward. So we're back to where we were before - the PCs have to rest, you don't let them, and they die in their next fight. This is the average result of the system you propose.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> That's no solution to the problem. 3.X is designed so that the players will _have_ to rest after every four (CR-appropriate) encounters. If they have expended all their resources, they have to rest, and if you don't let them, you basically guarantee a TPK in their next fight.
> 
> Your solution will lead to *much* more PC death than any 4E system would.





But the "9-9:15" problem isn't caused by resting after every four (CR-appropriate) encounters; it is caused by resting _between_ those encounters.

Also, it is certainly true that if 3e had more of the granularity of its predecessors, you could have a greater number of "lower-CR" encounters that would be meaningful, further extending the time one could adventure without either rest or a TPK.  It seems that 4e is moving in this direction, from what I've read, although the "per-encounter" model may work against this, as discussed previously.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Imaro said:
			
		

> The difference between the per-encounter and per-day resources, IMHO, in this situation are as follows.  Every encounter in a per-day model is "significant" because the total effect they have upon a character must always be considered.  In other words even casting a low-level spell must be considered against whether that spell may be useful, or even necessary in the next encounter or the third or fourth.  This makes every encounter significant in the fact that it carries consequences that must be accounted for besides what is best right here and rigt now.
> 
> In a per-encounter model, the only concern in using one's abilities is what is effective in the here and now.  You need not consider, as long as you use only per-encounter or at-will abilities...what the ramifications of holding in reserve or unleashing full blast will cause.  Instead it makes sense to always unleash since they will come back. In other words there is no consideration for long term consequences only short term.
> 
> I think of it like this...
> 
> Per-day abilities are more like chess in that a move you made 15 minutes ago will affect your capabilities later in the game...in fact all the way to the end.
> 
> Per-encounter abilities are like a fighting game(Tekken or Soul Calibur) they take strategy at the moment of the combat, but if you make bad decisions in the first round and loose, you still start at full power in the next round(though there are certain games where loosing the first round causes you to start with less life in the next round, and IMHO, it's a superior style of play.)
> 
> The other difference I see is that with a game that promotes long-term strategy, you have time to recognize the mistakes you've made and adjust your strategy to those mistakes outside of combat.  In confining strategy to the moment of combat, it does tend to promote a live or die(just like the fighting game) type of encounter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay a few problems I see with your example...the sending wave after wave without letting them recover per-encounter abilities.  This is not the same as the per-day abilities resource management(it's not just about attrition).  You've in effect taken the characters from 100% capacity and stuck them in a fight at 20% capacity...This means that at this point they use their per-day abilities, and if they are enough...they survive.  If not they die.  The player's didn't manage their resources over a long period of time(Unless they are aware there will be more fights in the same "encounter"), you surprised them with an encounter and the resources they have left is based on random factors(how hard the earlier fight was, if they were throwing abilities for "fun", how dangerous the second fight will be, etc.).  Basically it's promoting one playstyle and then doing the switcheroo on your players without warning.  It's more likely to get them killed than to promote any type of long-term considerations.
> 
> To take the fighting videogame example above...it would be like playing that and one player being aware that depending on how much you use your abilities affects your power level and life in the next round, but the other player doesn't.  I guarantee player 1 and player 2 are going to approach that first combat in totally different ways.  And my money would be on player 2.
> 
> I don't get the more "dynamic" encounter argument.  In D&D 3e you can do the same thing and with a finer grain of accuracy.  An encounter can again be challenging in and of itself without the risk of death or even major depletion of resources because the management of the resources itself is dynamic.  It gives a raneg of resource depletion that the DM can use to shape how long the PC's can go on, which IMHO is a good thing since the DM is the one who must be prepared for the encounters they will experience.  Only got 2 to 3 hours for play well then have three major encounters, each of which should deplete 30% of the characters resources.  Got 6hrs to play make up 4 encounters that deplete 10% of their resources each, then one balanced for 20% of their resources and a Big Bad who takes 30%.  I'm not seeing how these are any less dynamic than the per-encounter abilities.



1) Players might very well have been aware that there are others around that might be alerted by their activities. (
2) The point was not that the encounter based system can do the "attrition" thing better - but you can do it too, if you really want. 
3) The major point is: If the players get out, they can go on. This might not be what they want to do, but if it fits the plot (time constraints, story reasons) or the player's style, they can go on knowing that they can still fight in a few combats, just not one that is as tough as the last one. 

I think others have pointed it out:
There is no guarantee that some players will not decide to still go for the 9:00 to 9:15 adventure day. But the mechanics make it a lot easier to not do that, because if you are still at 80% of your resources, you know there is some kind of "buffer" that will protect you from harm. if you stumble into a encounter to tough for you, you have more time to notice that and can probably retreat before someone is killed. In the current system, if you enter a new room and the monsters in there take 75 % percent of the fighters hitpoints in the first round, he probably has little chance to retreat if the Wizard doesn't have some "control" magic left to shield him from the next attacks or the Clerics can't heal him back to a more "reasonable" amount of hit points.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So what is the fatality % for a CR encounter that matches the party level?



Obviously it's going to be different across different games. But I think we can agree that the chance of PC death exists, and is significantly higher than .0001%, can we not? At least for the majority of games out there.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Given that your CR=Party Level encounters seem to have a high fatality rate



Just as an aside, I never said that. I said that those encounters aren't boring in my games. PC death is pretty rare in CR=APL fights IME - though, again, the experience of others may be different.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I've said things like "if you send an ancient dragon against a 1st level PC, the PCs will die" and the response I often get is "no!  you're wrong because I don't use dragons in my world."
> 
> People don't understand well what I mean when I say *if*.  If what I'm saying fails to match your circumstances in it's premise, then it is irrelevant to your particular game.  However it doesn't mean that the reasoning is invalid.  At times perhaps it is hard to keep restating premises, and perhaps there has been some confusion there.



I understand that you are making a general argument and not one specific to any particular gaming table. What I'm saying is that if you agree that the possibility of PC death exists in most combat encounters in 3E, then I don't understand why you are criticizing your assumed 4E system for also having the possibility of PC death in most combat encounters. Is it that you believe there will be a _higher_ chance of PC death in your assumed 4E system? Because if that's the case, all we can really do is argue about what constitutes an "acceptable" risk of PC death in any given combat - and there's probably not much fruitful discussion to be had that way, because that's strictly a matter of opinion and individual play style.


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you answer the questions, we can proceed. At that point, relevancy will either be or fail to be demonstrated.  Otherwise, I fail to see the point of endlessly repeating myself.




As I said, I'm sure everyone will choose the adventure where there's a possibility of failure over the adventure with the long string of guaranteed wins. Further, I thought you had assumed that answer going in and thus your question was rhetorical. If your question was not rhetorical, then my honest answer is that my preference aligns with the majority in this particular case - I prefer adventures with possibility of failure over adventures with long strings of guaranteed wins.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> That's what happens when you don't listen to the arguments being made against you.




No, that's what happens when the arguments being made "against you" don't actually speak to the points you have made.

Ex:

Person 1:  "I don't think that this system will solve the problem that Wyatt says it will."

Person 2:  "Sure it will.  It will make wizards more fun to play."

Person 1:  "The problem Wyatt identifies isn't that wizards are unfun."

Person 2:  "Of course wizards are unfun now!  This will help."

etc.



> Fine. Say the party can only evade detection while resting some of the time. All this means is that you've moved from guaranteeing a TPK all of the time, to guaranteeing a TPK some of the time. Maybe that's an improvement, but it's not a significant one.
> 
> Seriously, what do you expect to happen when you hit the PCs with wandering monsters once all their resources are expended?




Once all their resources are expended, they are already dead, so I imagine that they will be eaten.    

Seriously, though, 3e made changes to the attrition model of earlier editions by changing the granularity of encounters.  This means that there is a far narrower range of encounters that are both mechanically "challenging" and possible to defeat without extraordinary luck.  One result of this is that it is more difficult to seed "small but significant" encounters that bridge the line between speed bump and TPK for a party that is low on resources.

WotC apparently recognizes this as well, and are therefore returning to a more 1-2e granularity of encounters (at least, according to the material released thus far).  

At least we've gotten to the point where we agree on the factors that make the PCs rest so frequently in 3e (I think we have, anyway).  Could you sum up, succinctly, why your first three fights aren't boring?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> my honest answer is that my preference aligns with the majority in this particular case - I prefer adventures with possibility of failure over adventures with long strings of guaranteed wins.




How many guaranteed wins per adventure can there be before the adventure suffers?


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> But the "9-9:15" problem isn't caused by resting after every four (CR-appropriate) encounters; it is caused by resting _between_ those encounters.



Well in my experience, while having four encounters in 15 minutes is probably a stretch, it's certainly possible to have four encounters in an hour. So change the 9-9:15 adventuring day to the 9-10 adventuring day if you prefer - it's still the same basic complaint.

Also, as the encounters get tougher, the number of them needed to force the PCs to rest decreases. So if a party just has one or two really tough encounters, they could easily have a 15 minute adventuring day.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Grog said:
			
		

> Well in my experience, while having four encounters in 15 minutes is probably a stretch, it's certainly possible to have four encounters in an hour. So change the 9-9:15 adventuring day to the 9-10 adventuring day if you prefer - it's still the same basic complaint.
> 
> Also, as the encounters get tougher, the number of them needed to force the PCs to rest decreases. So if a party just has one or two really tough encounters, they could easily have a 15 minute adventuring day.




OK, we certainly agree on this.

In fact, this is crucial to the point I am trying to make.    

So, it is fair to say that resting between those encounters, or after one encounter, doesn't matter.  The problem is the same.  Right?

RC


----------



## Imaro

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 1) Players might very well have been aware that there are others around that might be alerted by their activities. (
> 2) The point was not that the encounter based system can do the "attrition" thing better - but you can do it too, if you really want.
> 3) The major point is: If the players get out, they can go on. This might not be what they want to do, but if it fits the plot (time constraints, story reasons) or the player's style, they can go on knowing that they can still fight in a few combats, just not one that is as tough as the last one.




This isn't attrition, at least not in the sense of slowly degrading abilities that have longterm considerations.  What you've effectively demonstrated is a single encounter where the PC's can be pushed to lower than 80% of their resources.  The fact of the matter is that this was never in question.  In fact the same thing is possible in D&D 3e by using a higher rated CR creature or creatures in a single fight, but it's not the same as attrition of resources over time.

As far as "if they get out they can keep going"...the point I'm making is that in order to have a significant encounter they're chances of dying in that one encounter must be significantly higher than a per-day encounter that is significant because it weakens the PC's.   



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think others have pointed it out:
> There is no guarantee that some players will not decide to still go for the 9:00 to 9:15 adventure day. But the mechanics make it a lot easier to not do that, because if you are still at 80% of your resources, you know there is some kind of "buffer" that will protect you from harm. if you stumble into a encounter to tough for you, you have more time to notice that and can probably retreat before someone is killed. In the current system, if you enter a new room and the monsters in there take 75 % percent of the fighters hitpoints in the first round, he probably has little chance to retreat if the Wizard doesn't have some "control" magic left to shield him from the next attacks or the Clerics can't heal him back to a more "reasonable" amount of hit points.




It makes it easier to do this at an increased risk of PC death or even a TPK(if we are dealing with a significant encounter) within each instance of an encounter.  If we are dealing with insignificant encounters then again as RC said it soon becomes unsatisfying anyway(10th level fighter in combat with 4 goblins problem).  So how does this "fix" anything?


----------



## Raven Crowking

BTW, was there ever a general consensus on whether fights in 1e or 3e are generally deadlier?


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> That's what happens when you don't listen to the arguments being made against you.






			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Is it that you believe there will be a _higher_ chance of PC death in your assumed 4E system?




I'd be tempted to say, AGAIN, what I think on this issue but then I would be subjecting myself to the charge that I don't listen to the arguments against me, wouldn't I?  Seriously - Your first statement above is rude, presumptuous, and (as is usually the case when the first two qualify) is not very relevant to the subject at hand.  If you think you've been ignored on specific points it would be more informative just to say what those points are.

In the case of what I've said regarding the 4E death rate, it's not as simple as a "yes/no" answer to your question.  But basically - given that the "per-encounter" resource system removes the significance of attrition encounters, then it resigns you to encounters whose only significance is in their chance of death.  Then, it seems to me to be strongly a matter of logic that the "per-encounter" resource system is an inherently deadlier system than 3E, all other things being equal.

The one issue that might mitigate this is the potential deaths that arise from unfortunate resource management issues - for example camping out while you're weakened, and being ambushed.  However, these circumstances are easily controlled by the DM and are part of the challenge level of the dungeon.  Easier dungeons would have easier patrols to deal with in the area - it's the same basic technique that you use for encounter balancing currently.


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I believe that it is bad with regard for my preferred style of play, and that (moreover) I believe that it is bad for D&D.



The first part's hard to argue with, but the second I have to disagree with, mainly because I've been playing/running campaigns over the past several years that reduced the role of that kind of resource management without any ill effects. In fact, there have only been positive effects (what we've lost in operational planning, we've more than made in memorable cinematic wahaoo-use).

So color me skeptical about the overall deleterious effects of reducing the role of operational-level resource management. I just haven't seen them practice. 



> I think that the play experience that has made D&D the leader in the industry will be damaged.



Why? I know that a focus on resource management over time has traditionally been a part of the game, but so was restrictive multiclassing, and 3E got rid of that to much rejoicing (for the most part).

Don't you have to demonstrate that it 4E _won't_ be able to offer a reasonable level of player challenge under a per-encounter model for you to assert that that the 'play experience' will be damaged. That, simply put, that model won't work? And seeing as it does work, well, in fact, under a modified d20 engine in the case of M&M, isn't that a little tough to demonstrate?  



> I do not think D&D should play like Mutants and Masterminds (which is, however, a fine system for its genre).



Why not, exactly? I've toyed with the idea of switching my 3.5e campaign to M&M2e, and the only reason I haven't is sheer laziness. I don't think M&M would do dungeon crawls very well, unless you limited most at-will abilities, but I don't use many dungeons, and more modeling the wider world of 'adventure stories', M&M seems to me like a fine choice.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> BTW, was there ever a general consensus on whether fights in 1e or 3e are generally deadlier?




Great Caesar's Ghost!  Do you really want to go there?  On this thread?  If you mix a 1e/3e edition war with this thread the ensuing chaos could destroy all civilization as we know it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

> This isn't attrition, at least not in the sense of slowly degrading abilities that have longterm considerations



Not for long-term considerations. But is it really that important whether resource attrition is long-term or short-term? Okay, that might in fact be the point that we are discussing all the time and are having different ideas about. 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No, that's what happens when the arguments being made "against you" don't actually speak to the points you have made.
> 
> Ex:
> 
> Person 1:  "I don't think that this system will solve the problem that Wyatt says it will."
> 
> Person 2:  "Sure it will.  It will make wizards more fun to play."
> 
> Person 1:  "The problem Wyatt identifies isn't that wizards are unfun."
> 
> Person 2:  "Of course wizards are unfun now!  This will help."



This might be a good point. 

But I might add something: I don't know who of the designers said it, but I think it was one of the blogs.

The basic idea at the beginning of D&D was that 
a) It takes 13 encounters with an EL equal to Party Level to gain a new level. 
b) PL = EL is the standard encounter.
c) PL = EL means 25 % of the groups resource have been depleted, on average (and probably not accounting for full "rule mastery" and tactical genius, but also not bad luck and incompetency  )
A lot of the design assumptions about balance seemed to be based on this fact.

But the actual usage of the system seems to be different: 

1) Because encouners with PL = EL aren't challenging in and on themselves (once you reach rules mastery and tactical expeience), DMs and module writers introduced more encounters with a higher level. I know that several adventures I played in had ELs that were EL+4 _and_ higher. (And yes, we prevailed. We are that good at powergaming in tactics)
2) Not all adventures are a string of combat encounters over the course of a day. A investigation story, or a adventure based on city politics will have less combat encounters per day. 

1 might come from the fact that such encounters are either quickly overcome with the use of the generous use of spell casting (therefore ruining any "thrill" the encounters might had), or because the spellcasters hold back a lot and their players seemed less interested in such encounters.

Anyway, this can very easily lead to the "15 minute" (I prefer to stay with the exaggerated time value  ) syndrome, because you really can only beat this one encounter. It also leads to spellcasters easily overshadowing non-spellcasters in such an encounter, because they burn through all their daily resources - neither having a choice nor being interesting in doing something different.
2 has a different reason then 1, but it leads to the same problem. Spellcasters overshadow non-spellcasters since they can go "nova" in that encounter.


So, the quoted dialog might result because some people think they know the reason how the 15 minute adventure day came into being, and this being that playing a spell caster that holds back most of the time isn't fun, which leads to a different encounter dynamic.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

> In the case of what I've said regarding the 4E death rate, it's not as simple as a "yes/no" answer to your question. But basically - given that the "per-encounter" resource system removes the significance of attrition encounters, then it resigns you to encounters whose only significance is in their chance of death. Then, it seems to me to be strongly a matter of logic that the "per-encounter" resource system is an inherently deadlier system than 3E, all other things being equal.




I've played systems that had, essentially, per-encounter resources and systems that had something more "operational".  My anecdotal experience is that neither form has any substantial, direct affect on the inherent deadliness of the system.  I _have_ noticed that per-encounter resources make more people aware of whatever deadliness is being provided by the system--and moreover, the particular GM. This has an indirect effect on deadliness.  That is, "per-encounter" is easier to run and play. Easier things have more obvious consequences, and people thus react more obviously.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> The first part's hard to argue with, but the second I have to disagree with





Statement of opinion only, in this case, my friend.  Plus, I believe Jackalope King is going to open a thread to discuss this issue.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Great Caesar's Ghost!  Do you really want to go there?  On this thread?  If you mix a 1e/3e edition war with this thread the ensuing chaos could destroy all civilization as we know it.





So far as I know, I'm not trying to start an edition war.  However, the 3e CR/EL System and its effects on the way encounters were handled are, IMHO, germaine to the issue of resource management and the granularity of encounters with respect to the same.

RC


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Seriously, though, 3e made changes to the attrition model of earlier editions by changing the granularity of encounters.  This means that there is a far narrower range of encounters that are both mechanically "challenging" and possible to defeat without extraordinary luck.  One result of this is that it is more difficult to seed "small but significant" encounters that bridge the line between speed bump and TPK for a party that is low on resources.



In general, I agree with this assessment. I find that I get much better results if I ignore the CR system completely (or just use it as a loose guideline) and tailor fights against PC capabilities more directly. Sometimes the CRs for the monsters come down where they're supposed to, sometimes they don't.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> At least we've gotten to the point where we agree on the factors that make the PCs rest so frequently in 3e (I think we have, anyway).  Could you sum up, succinctly, why your first three fights aren't boring?



I don't know. I haven't sat down and analyzed why we often have fun with encounters that others think are boring. I guess it just comes down to different play styles. This isn't to say that CR-appropriate fights are never boring for us, it's just not common.

I will say that there's usually a risk of PC death in our combats, even the CR-appropriate ones. It's not an incredibly high risk, but it is there. And I think that's fairly common among most gamers.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How many guaranteed wins per adventure can there be before the adventure suffers?



I have no idea. But since no one has said that they expect or want to see guaranteed wins become commonplace in 4E, again, I'm not sure how this is relevant.


----------



## Grog

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OK, we certainly agree on this.
> 
> In fact, this is crucial to the point I am trying to make.
> 
> So, it is fair to say that resting between those encounters, or after one encounter, doesn't matter.  The problem is the same.  Right?



If the problem is the short adventuring day, yes. But there is a difference - if the players have one CR-appropriate encounter and then rest, they're making the decision to rest when they could go on instead. But if they have a huge battle that depletes most of their resources, then they basically have no choice but to rest.

The first is a reflection of play style, the second is an artifact of the 3.X rules.


----------



## Mallus

Someone's opening a new thread?


----------



## gizmo33

Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> I've played systems that had, essentially, per-encounter resources and systems that had something more "operational".  My anecdotal experience is that neither form has any substantial, direct affect on the inherent deadliness of the system.




Well, let me nitpick this:  your experiences have shown that you did not experience a higher frequency of death.  This is distinct from the system being deadlier because IME DMs will compensate for a rule system they understand in order to reduce/increase deadliness to an acceptable level.  If what I am saying were to come to pass in 4E, and 4E would become more deadly, DMs would compensate, the way they already do now such as when module designers habitually increase the EL of their adventures (an example given a few posts above).

However, it is not reassuring to me to consider the possibility that I may have to compensate for this feature of the hypothetical 4E design.  Granted, I don't know whether or not your DMs were playing the systems as designed, it's likely that you believe that they were, so this might not be an issue.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'd be tempted to say, AGAIN, what I think on this issue but then I would be subjecting myself to the charge that I don't listen to the arguments against me, wouldn't I?  Seriously - Your first statement above is rude, presumptuous, and (as is usually the case when the first two qualify) is not very relevant to the subject at hand.



It's no ruder than this statement of yours:



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> If we agree on how deadly a CR encounter is for a matched party level, then I think that fact should remain immutable through the conversation. As it stands now, this "fact" seems to change depending on what argument it is being used to support.



Which insinuates that the people arguing against you are doing so in bad faith. But, regardless, I apologize for any rudeness on my part.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> In the case of what I've said regarding the 4E death rate, it's not as simple as a "yes/no" answer to your question.  But basically - given that the "per-encounter" resource system removes the significance of attrition encounters, then it resigns you to encounters whose only significance is in their chance of death.



This doesn't follow. Multiple people have explained why in the course of this thread. The short version is that risk of death and risk of resource attrition are not the only two ways to make an encounter significant.

But, without even getting into that, in a 3E encounter whose main purpose is resource attrition, _the risk of death still exists_. Unless you send your players up against encounters that are so weak that they deplete party resources one Cure Light Wounds spell at a time, there exists in 3E the very real possibility that a PC will die in any given battle. 3E "resource attrition" encounters are _also_ 3E "risk of death" encounters. So we're back to talking about what constitutes an "acceptable" risk of death - and as I said, that's all down to opinion and individual play style.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The one issue that might mitigate this is the potential deaths that arise from unfortunate resource management issues - for example camping out while you're weakened, and being ambushed.  However, these circumstances are easily controlled by the DM and are part of the challenge level of the dungeon.  Easier dungeons would have easier patrols to deal with in the area - it's the same basic technique that you use for encounter balancing currently.



Well, of course easier dungeons will have easier patrols than harder ones - I would have thought that that was a given. That doesn't change the fact that if you ambush your PCs after they've used up all their resources, you will very likely have a TPK on your hands.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Statement of opinion only, in this case, my friend.  Plus, I believe Jackalope King is going to open a thread to discuss this issue.
> 
> RC



Yes, if this lecture on colon cancer ever ends, I certainly will.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So far as I know, I'm not trying to start an edition war.  However, the 3e CR/EL System and its effects on the way encounters were handled are, IMHO, germaine to the issue of resource management and the granularity of encounters with respect to the same.




I was just kidding around.    The question you ask (the comparative deadliness of 1E to 3E) is actually a major bone of contention in the editions war though - IMO it's unlikely that someone could propose an answer without objection.


----------



## FickleGM

Has anyone mentioned James Wyatt's latest blog entry?

It appears as though some of the stuff being discussed here is also being discussed "there" (specifically in his first topic).



			
				James Wyatt said:
			
		

> *Button-mashing and comparing power*
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Two things bouncing around on this fine morning, my second day back from vacation.
> 
> *Button-mashing*
> One is something I alluded to on my personal blog the other day, which was about my experience playing a warlock in World of Warcraft. I like the class, but when I play that character too long, I get tired of pressing the same buttons in the same order every single fight. The only things I vary are (a) which curse to use, which only changes if I'm fighting a spellcaster, (b) whether to default to Shadow Bolt or my wand after I do my three DoTs (which depends on my mana), and (c) whether to put some Drain Manas in there (depending on whether the mob has mana and how my stores are doing). Frankly, it gets boring.
> 
> There have been iterations of Fourth Edition where we've had the same problem. Fundamentally, it's a problem you encounter whenever your resources are perfectly renewable. Some characters in Tome of Battle have that problem, although with combat in D&D being more dynamic than PvE combat in WoW, there are always things that encourage you to mix up your pattern. But you tend to default to using your best power, then your next-best, and so on down the line.
> 
> For that matter, NPC spellcasters in 3e have much the same problem, and PC spellcasters can fall into it as well. For an NPC who doesn't care about resource management, it's simply the best strategy to lead off with the best spells and work on down the levels. Heck, that's why our new stat block format lists higher-level spells first.
> 
> When you have the right balance between powers that refresh all the time and powers that are more limited, the game becomes more interesting. Strong power design also helps. When some of your powers are per-day, you're constantly asking yourself, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?" When your powers are well-designed, you also ask the question, "Is this the right round to use this power?"
> 
> Look at the 3e barbarian. At low-level, rage is a once-per-day ability. The key question for the 3e barbarian is which fight is the one to rage in. (Unfortunately, that usually translates to, "Is this the fight where I get to have fun?") As he gets higher level, it becomes more like a per-encounter resource, and he uses it every encounter. It lasts long enough to cover the whole encounters, so it's actually no longer an interesting choice. It's more like a default state. If it were better designed, the barbarian would be asking himself, "Is this the right round to start raging?"
> 
> *Comparing Power*
> It's funny. I actually had to go and ask Chris Perkins and Andy Collins this morning what people mean when they're asking whether Fourth Edition characters will be "more powerful" than Third Edition characters of the same level. I assumed the question was relative, and it made no sense to me. 4E characters will be just as challenged by encounters of their level as 3E characters would be if 3E encounter design actually worked. The power level, from that mindset, is the same.
> 
> That just shows how immersed I am in 4E, I guess. Andy explained that what he thinks people want to know is whether characters will have more hit points and do more damage. Purely a question of raw numbers, rather than of what those numbers mean in the world.
> 
> Given that 3E is inherently unbalanced—low-level characters are too weak and high-level characters are too powerful—I guess the right answer is that low-level characters will be more powerful and high-level characters will be less so. Everyone will be balanced, because we've erased the accident of math.
> 
> When it comes to sheer numbers, though, I guess the answer is that we've worked hard to adjust the scale of the math so that the numbers feel right. The math of the system would work the same if our baseline weapon damage were 3d6 as it would if the baseline weapon damage were 1d6, assuming that everything scaled properly from that baseline. But the 3d6 baseline would make all the numbers feel inflated, and 4E characters would seem a lot more powerful than their 3E counterparts. So we've tried to set the baselines at a level where the numbers will feel comparable to historical numbers. Even if fireball no longer does 1d6/level.
> 
> We have not gone the route of some well-known TCGs. Magic does single points of damage. Pokemon does damage in units of 10. Yu-gi-oh does damage in units of 100. Duelmasters uses units of 1000. It's all basically the same math, but inflated so the numbers feel different. We could do that in D&D. Heck, anyone could. Add a 0 to the end of all your numbers, and see how that feels. That won't be 4E.
> 
> Oh, and ability scores—that was the other thing Andy said. I think the answer is the same: low-level characters will look better, and high-level characters will look worse. But only when you compare them to 3E characters decked out with magic items. Shifting emphasis away from magic items means that raw numbers will look higher across the board.
> 
> But I still have a hard time grasping the fundamental nature of the question. The real answer is that characters will be balanced, across 30 levels.


----------



## Celebrim

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Has anyone mentioned James Wyatt's latest blog entry?
> 
> It appears as though some of the stuff being discussed here is also being discussed "there" (specifically in his first topic).




To me, that's the first positive feeling post about 4e by anyone with inside access.

Summed up, it says, 'Ok, so there are these various tradeoffs in the design, but we are aware of them and looking at them, and we think we'll have a winning combination.'

Ok, sweet.  And for once, it doesn't have a structure like, "This was bad.  We are doing this.  Now things are totally awesome.", because alot of the time not only did the thing that they are doing carry a cost, but it wasn't clear to me how it fix the thing that they said was bad.  At least after this sort of post, I don't have to put up with people with a sudden case of tribalism going, "I hate the bad thing.  WotC said that after they do this new thing, the bad thing is going to go away.  Therefore the new thing is an absolute good and I will smite anyone that says anything against it."

I'm still far from being sold on anything they are doing, but at least I'm not being turned off of it for once.  There is I think some honesty, and that goes a long long ways for me.

Anyway, reading between the lines:

1a) Higher default point buy for starting PC's.  Higher starting hit points for starting PCs.  
2a) Smaller progression of powers per level.  
2b) How they are going to do this and not have dead levels is going to be interesting.  It almost suggests quasi-point buy, where each level you can choose between several minor powers to buy.
3a) More speculative, but it looks like random hitpoints per hit die are going away.


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> Which insinuates that the people arguing against you are doing so in bad faith. But, regardless, I apologize for any rudeness on my part.




The statement that I made was an appeal for some constistency, and I've been pretty specific about the areas where it's lacking.  Some of you (and that's a general you) are accepting statements without debate when they're made by folks who support your conclusions but then object to virtually the same statement made by someone trying to make an opposite point.  The insinuation of bad faith is not completely out of line, but I actually hadn't made up my mind *why* this was happening.  In any case I don't think an apology is really necessary or productive in a case where it's mixed with an accusation.  



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> This doesn't follow. Multiple people have explained why in the course of this thread. The short version is that risk of death and risk of resource attrition are not the only two ways to make an encounter significant.




And I'll say - again - that this directly contradicts Wyatt's premise.  Now if you want to change the premises upon which the line of reasoning is based, then we can start from the beginning.  But the basic topic of "Wyatt's changes are not solving Wyatt's problems" is not resolved.  I also think it's significant that while people have repeatedly said what you've said here, they are strangely reluctant to provide an example.  Actually, I would agree with what you're saying, but I don't think that the other types of encounters you're suggesting exist are frequent enough to have a significant bearing on this issue.  But as I said, I would find that easier to discuss if it were an established premise.  



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> But, without even getting into that, in a 3E encounter whose main purpose is resource attrition, _the risk of death still exists_. Unless you send your players up against encounters that are so weak that they deplete party resources one Cure Light Wounds spell at a time, there exists in 3E the very real possibility that a PC will die in any given battle.




And as I said before (and I meant it), .0001% is a real value.  And it exists.  But it's probably not significant, though that is somewhat a matter of opinion.  I suspect that you believe (understandably) the chance to be higher.  But much higher?  Significant?  To me that's more the relevant question.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> 3E "resource attrition" encounters are _also_ 3E "risk of death" encounters. So we're back to talking about what constitutes an "acceptable" risk of death - and as I said, that's all down to opinion and individual play style.




Again, it went uncontested in Wyatt's blog entry that an EL=APL encounter did not post a "risk of death" that was suitable for making the encounter an interesting one.  I don't mind changing premises at some point but I'd rather start with Wyatt's since they seem to be uncontested by most folks that support the "per-encounter" system.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Well, of course easier dungeons will have easier patrols than harder ones - I would have thought that that was a given. That doesn't change the fact that if you ambush your PCs after they've used up all their resources, you will very likely have a TPK on your hands.




It does, in fact, change that.  If you "ambush" the resting 20th level PCs with a single kobold scout, you would not have a TPK on your hands.  This case might be extreme but it is sufficient for showing the existence of a counter example, and most likely a range of counter examples.  The fact that you can make patrols easy in the design can mean that the patrols are manageable/escapable by the PCs, and thus not any more of a guarrantee of a TPK than any other encounter.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

> Well, let me nitpick this: your experiences have shown that you did not experience a higher frequency of death. This is distinct from the system being deadlier because IME DMs will compensate for a rule system they understand in order to reduce/increase deadliness to an acceptable level. If what I am saying were to come to pass in 4E, and 4E would become more deadly, DMs would compensate, the way they already do now such as when module designers habitually increase the EL of their adventures (an example given a few posts above).
> 
> However, it is not reassuring to me to consider the possibility that I may have to compensate for this feature of the hypothetical 4E design. Granted, I don't know whether or not your DMs were playing the systems as designed, it's likely that you believe that they were, so this might not be an issue.




Keeping in mind that anecdotal experiences are merely anecdotal experiences... I played the systems as designed, to the best of my ability.  I think my ability, while not perfect, is considerable here, since I come from the school of criticism that tries to take things on their own merits.  Then I also played those systems with house rules, seeking to aid that design, and also played them with considerable house rules in an attempt to bend the system to a different design.  In one case, Fantasy Hero, I played multiple editions this way.  With FH, you can set up a campaign to have "operational resources", or not, within the rules.  OTOH, i was usually the DM. So since I'm aware of these kind of things, I would have teased out the level of deadliness I wanted even if it were difficult to do so.

I did see enough other people running games to suspect that the deadliness of a game has more to do with what the DM wants, than anything else. But to the larger question--of course a DM will compensate.  A DM always compensates, unless he wants the game to just happen.  If he can't figure things out himself, he will get help--from players, experiments, or nowadays, online.  

Give deadliness an arbitrary scale, say 1-10, with 10 being the deadliest possible.  You can design a game with operational resources that is a 1.  You can do one that is a 10.  You can design a game with no operational resources that runs the whole range, too.  The first game will take some DMs and players a little longer to tease out, and there will be a subset of players and DMs that never get a full handle on it.  Until teased out, the games will have surprised in deadliness, or lack thereof.  Once teased out, these will diminish--whether through system mastery, DM compensation, house rules, whatever.  The second game, with no operational resources, will follow the same pattern, except that more people will figure things out, faster.

Let me be clear.  If you changed nothing in 3E but switching per-day resources out for per-encounter resources, there would be a (temporary) shift to more deadliness, until people got used to the change--at least if the change was supported by official modules.  (If not so supported, the shift would probably be the other way, because we'd see more cakewalks until DMs adjusted to the idea that characters didn't run out of resources.)  Likewise, loss of an operational resource is one obvious thing that can be signficant short of death.  Taking these away could encourage a subset of DMs to become more deadly.  But that is a far cry from saying that per-encounter is inherently more deadly (or less deadly, for that matter).  It isn't.  It's like alcohol.  It brings out what is already there, misery or happiness--the deadly DMs will see their way clear to do that, and the less deadly DMs will see their way clear to do their things.

Finally, I wouldn't be terribly happy with removing all operational resources, as I personally like them, and want that toy in my DM toolbox (when I'm setting deadliness and other things).  Obviously, there will still be some operational resources in 4E.  The effect of reducing operational resources in a new edition can in no way be tied to inherent increased (or decreased) deadliness until we see it in play.  It depends on the design choices.  When players are used to having 40 resources (e.g. mid-level Wizard spell slots) and then they switch to having a lot less, but some, we really don't know what that will do to the mindset.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

> And I'll say - again - that this directly contradicts Wyatt's premise. Now if you want to change the premises upon which the line of reasoning is based, then we can start from the beginning. But the basic topic of "Wyatt's changes are not solving Wyatt's problems" is not resolved.




I would say that, in regards to Wyatt's premise, the proposed changes are necessary but not sufficient.  In theoretical terms, as discussed at length in this very topic, doing nothing but switching to a per-encounter would simply modify the playing field.  However, in practical terms, how players relate to the overall system is more than strict mechanics.


----------



## gizmo33

Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> I did see enough other people running games to suspect that the deadliness of a game has more to do with what the DM wants, than anything else.




That's exactly what I was trying to say.  With the addition that it makes anecdotal experiences hard to evaluate from the player perspective, since generally only the DM knows how the system was affecting his ability to maintain the fatality rate the way he wanted it.  The players IME typically don't see the numbers involved.



			
				Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> Likewise, loss of an operational resource is one obvious thing that can be signficant short of death.  Taking these away could encourage a subset of DMs to become more deadly.




I think it would encourage almost all DMs to be more deadly, because they would think of most encounters in terms of "is this worth having?  ie. is this dangerous enough to be interesting".  Now encouragement doesn't mean that DMs wouldn't find a way to compensate.  To continue your alchohol analogy - alchohol never brings out the "good driver" in anyone, it creates a set of circumstances that can be overcome but at a greater level of challenge.  

So yes, I think deadliness is inherent in a system that is saying "the main thing of significance in an encounter is it's chance of inflicting death".  I believe that removing operational considerations from encounters creates this effect.  The result follows.


----------



## Jackelope King

I've opened the new thread here.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> It does, in fact, change that.  If you "ambush" the resting 20th level PCs with a single kobold scout, you would not have a TPK on your hands.  This case might be extreme but it is sufficient for showing the existence of a counter example, and most likely a range of counter examples.  The fact that you can make patrols easy in the design can mean that the patrols are manageable/escapable by the PCs, and thus not any more of a guarrantee of a TPK than any other encounter.




If the PCs can beat the ambush encounter, then it won't discourage them from resting. So nothing has changed.

In order for a potential wandering monster encounter to provide a disincentive to resting, it has to pose a threat to the PCs. And when the PCs have used up all their resources, anything that presents a threat to them is pretty much guaranteed to wipe them out, barring incredible good luck on their part.


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> If the PCs can beat the ambush encounter, then it won't discourage them from resting. So nothing has changed.




I agree.  But then your premise doesn't really resemble mine.  You talked about 100% certainty of a TPK, and now you're suggesting that I'm saying the encounter would be a 0% chance of any bad outcome.  Somewhere in the middle is what I meant, and is appropriate to the point I'm making.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> In order for a potential wandering monster encounter to provide a disincentive to resting, it has to pose a threat to the PCs.




And in a resource management system, that "threat" can often be to the PCs resources, thus the reason that assuming it must be the threat of a TPK seems more in the habit of the "per-encounter" mode of thinking.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> And when the PCs have used up all their resources, anything that presents a threat to them is pretty much guaranteed to wipe them out, barring incredible good luck on their part.




First, I think you mean "anything that presents a threat to the party when they are fully rested".  I find that reasoning to be somewhat circular.  I said that the dungeon design for an adventure must take into account that the area scouts could well be encountering a party at less than it's full strength.  Otherwise yes, anything capable of killing the party will stand a chance of killing the party.

A single kobold that runs away and brings stronger monsters is even a threat in a resource management game.  In the "per-encounter" resource paradigm, that single kobold is of no consequence unless the help he brings manages to be of a power sufficient to pose a threat to a fully-rested party.  The range of subtlety in the resource management game AFAICT is greater than I've been able to get across.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> And in a resource management system, that "threat" can often be to the PCs resources,



Not if the PCs resources are already used up it can't, as would be the case when they were resting (given the basic premise that the PCs are resting after four CR-appropriate encounters as the 3.X system assumes they will).



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> First, I think you mean "anything that presents a threat to the party when they are fully rested".  I find that reasoning to be somewhat circular.  I said that the dungeon design for an adventure must take into account that the area scouts could well be encountering a party at less than it's full strength.



There are many varying degrees of "less than full strength." What we're talking about here is a party with basically _no_ strength remaining. Unless the patrols are ludicrously weak compared to the rest of the dungeon, any encounter at that point is extremely likely to result in a TPK.

But, say that the party does get ambushed and manages to survive the encounter. What are they going to do at that point? Try to rest again. They'll probably try to get to somewhere safer this time, but they have no other choice. So at best, wandering monsters will not change the "rest after four encounters" paradigm at all, and at worst, you have TPKs on a regular basis. It's no solution.


----------



## IanArgent

I guess I didn't make my point plain - in a game with NO resource management (Shadowrun) it is entirely possible to have fun, exciting, and interesting encounters than span the gamut from easy to OMGWTFBBQ! The biggest difference? OMGWTFBBQ can happen before the easy encounter. And _that_ is the one of the better things about going away from per-day only. You can have the OMGWTFBBQ encounter at the beginning of the day, when the party _has_ to "nova" to beat it, and they're still capable of going on and taking on somewhat lesser encounters.


----------



## FickleGM

IanArgent said:
			
		

> I guess I didn't make my point plain - in a game with NO resource management (Shadowrun) it is entirely possible to have fun, exciting, and interesting encounters than span the gamut from easy to OMGWTFBBQ! The biggest difference? OMHWTFBBQ can happen before the easy encounter. And _that_ is the one of the better things about going away from per-day only. You can have the OGMWTFBBQ encounter at the beginning of the day, when the party _has_ to "nova" to beat it, and they're still capable of going on and taking on somewhat lesser encounters.



 My experiences with different games that lack the level of resource management that D&D has, agrees with your assessment...but, your acronym keeps changing.


----------



## IanArgent

Sorry about that - fixed.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, encounters and combats are more complicated that the simple point-by-point analysis I made.  Yes, there are additional factors irrelevant to the point being made.  Yes, I failed to include them because they are irrelevant.



You asserted at your post #502 that "If a battle does not use up per-day resources, nothing is lost in engaging in that battle. This means . . . [t]he only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff."

I deny this. There can be other significant impacts, namely thematic ones.

Jackelope King also denies it, though he has referred to story/plot impacts rather than thematic ones (not that these two categories are mutually exclusive):



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'd ask that you give a reason why the non-personal resources I describe are, in fact, irrelevant, in the roleplaying genre.




As for the following:



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Every encounter in a per-day model is "significant" because the total effect they have upon a character must always be considered.



This is true. But it doesn't show that every encounter in a per-encounter model will not be signficant, because it doesn't show that resource-consumption is that only dimension of significance.

It is correct that a per-encounter model discourages "encounters-for-the-sake-of-encounters" which do nothing but soak resources. But it is quite arguable that this is a sensible design goal (although to an extent it does push D&D away from its roots).



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> In your example majority of battles have to have a far-reaching or "thematic" purpose in order to produce impact.  If this arrives naturally through gameplay then that's great...but I shouldn't have to institute melodrama(this sounds mighty close to railaoading) in every encounter for it to have impact.



There is a style of play which has _nothing_ to do with railroading, and has everything to do with thematic exploration. This is a style in which the _players_ determine the thematic priorities of play, and pursue those themes through their in-play choices. Many RPG systems have mechanics to support the players in doing these (eg TRoS's Spiritual Attributes). Gizmo33 and I discussed these above in a number of posts. He concluded that he does not enjoy this sort of "storyteller" game. That is fine - I get the sense that you don't either - but it has _nothing_ to do with railroading. And it is a style of play which per-encounter abilities may better suppot.


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> Not if the PCs resources are already used up it can't, as would be the case when they were resting




No, that would be the case when *they're dead*.  Hit points are a resource.  Losing further hitpoints to a kobold scout is an example of losing further resources.  The idea that the PCs would be at precisely 0% resources other than hitpoints is such an extreme case that I'm not sure what point it makes to assume that.  A spare potion, a magic arrow, one single spell, etc. - all examples of resources that they could reasonably have.  If they're really so bad off then they should leave the dangerous area as soon as they can - evade detection and hope for the best.  Such is life when the possible results are something other than victory or death.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Unless the patrols are ludicrously weak compared to the rest of the dungeon, any encounter at that point is extremely likely to result in a TPK.




Well what if something runs through the threatened areas of 15 ogres while wearing only a loincloth?  Is that a problem with the AoO rules?  I'd say it's a problem with the player not making good choices.

A party that rests at 0% resources within enemy territory must cross it's fingers and hope for the best.  Like they guy in the loincloth, it's not an example that I see much purpose in contemplating.  Did I miss something?  Does this situation make a case of some kind?  I don't want to drop it if there's some significance here.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> But, say that the party does get ambushed and manages to survive the encounter. What are they going to do at that point? Try to rest again.




Really?  Your players must have a death wish.  Mine would haul out of there if they weren't trying already.  It was one thing to camp at 20% resources when you thought you might be able to deal with a scout patrol.  It's another thing to be discovered by that patrol, take further hitpoints of damage, and face the possibility that a scout unknowingly was able to return to his leadership and inform them of your position.  IME the party that gets ambushed and survives is going to flee the area.



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> They'll probably try to get to somewhere safer this time, but they have no other choice. So at best, wandering monsters will not change the "rest after four encounters" paradigm at all, and at worst, you have TPKs on a regular basis. It's no solution.




I think that tactical situation is more complicated than you are recognizing.  If you don't play a resource management style game, perhaps there's a chance that you don't understand all of the situations that come up in such a game.  IMO you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions. 

What happens when the players don't rest until they're at 0% resources?  Same thing that happens when someone gets hit with 5 critical hits in a row - probably something bad.  Is that bad game design?  Not necessarily - it's probably just bad luck (or if the criticals were a result of obvious AoOs) bad judgement.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> It is correct that a per-encounter model discourages "encounters-for-the-sake-of-encounters" which do nothing but soak resources. But it is quite arguable that this is a sensible design goal (although to an extent it does push D&D away from its roots).




"Encounters for the sake of encounters" directly contradicts the latter part of the same sentence that suggests that the encounter soaks resources.  That very well may be it's purpose.  That being said, has anyone suggested that the "per-encounter resource' model actually increases the possible number of dimensions of interest?  Any reason that an encounter is interesting in "per-encounter 4E", it's interesting in 3E.  All the 4E resource situation does is eliminate operational consequences.  It may do this to try to accomplish a number of things (like added staying power) but AFAICT one thing it *does not* appear to do is increase the possible reasons why an encounter would matter (the "dimensions of interest" or whatever we're calling them)



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Gizmo33 and I discussed these above in a number of posts. He concluded that he does not enjoy this sort of "storyteller" game. That is fine - I get the sense that you don't either - but it has _nothing_ to do with railroading. And it is a style of play which per-encounter abilities may better suppot.




Thematic exploration and railroading are unfortunately inter-twined in a lot of people's experiences, including my own.  Talking to folks like yourself over time I've evolved what I think is a fairer assessment of the situation.  People of my disposition (whatever we're called, I usually say "game oriented" vs. "story oriented") tend to look for variation in certain key areas when we don't find it, it's easy to conclude that railroading is going on.  I think storyteller gamers are more inclined to focus on the variability of the events within a certain framework.  (This was my conclusion from our discussion of what "open ended" meant.)

The way I'd try to explain it to someone like myself is to remind the "game oriented" player that a certain amount of railroading is necessary for the PCs to have joined together in an adventuring company to begin with.  The players implicitly understand and accept this situation, and the DM uses it to establish the game in a way that everyone will have fun.  I basically believe the same thing is going on with "story telling" gaming.  It's just a different framework that superficially seems to intrude into the player's choice - but the players voluntarily choose to give up those choices (as they do when a game-oriented DM tells them "you meet in a tavern") in return for a more meaningful game experience.  Good luck. 

(And I still am skeptical that per-encounter resource management does anything to help story telling games, but story-teller gamers are in a better position to make that judgement I suppose.)


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:
			
		

> This is true. But it doesn't show that every encounter in a per-encounter model will not be signficant, because it doesn't show that resource-consumption is that only dimension of significance.




No one said it was the only dimension of significance.  What I'm saying is that, without changing the entire premise of D&D's style of play... it forces artificial construction of thematic and story resources to make encounters important in a long-term sense.  For your argument here you're making the assumption that the entire nature of D&D will be changed.  Another note is that it only takes one player to be unconcerned with these thematic or story driven awards(or to even be unconcerned with a fellow players) to derail this type of resource management.  Bet everyone's concerned with whether their character survives or not. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> It is correct that a per-encounter model discourages "encounters-for-the-sake-of-encounters" which do nothing but soak resources. But it is quite arguable that this is a sensible design goal (although to an extent it does push D&D away from its roots).
> 
> 
> There is a style of play which has _nothing_ to do with railroading, and has everything to do with thematic exploration. This is a style in which the _players_ determine the thematic priorities of play, and pursue those themes through their in-play choices. Many RPG systems have mechanics to support the players in doing these (eg TRoS's Spiritual Attributes). Gizmo33 and I discussed these above in a number of posts. He concluded that he does not enjoy this sort of "storyteller" game. That is fine - I get the sense that you don't either - but it has _nothing_ to do with railroading. And it is a style of play which per-encounter abilities may better suppot.




This is a style of play that totally redefines the basis of D&D gameplay...and if the players aren't concerned with deep roleplaying then yes it does become a railroad as you force them to care about your story.  Or better yet what if a player wants to explore the "themes" of high adventure and loot grabbing...back at square one.  

As far as whther I enjoy this type of game(Dogs in the Vineyard, Changeling the Lost, nMage, Seven Leagues, etc.) yes I do but only with those willing to buy into the tropes it presents.  As a side note this is one of the reasons I have kept D&D as part of my game reptoire over the years, because it doesn't require one to buy into anything for basic play.  There are games which are way more suited for this type of play, I look at D&D as able to accomodate it but it isn't necessary.  Your whole argument seems based on making this mandatory.


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that, without changing the entire premise of D&D's style of play... it forces artificial construction of thematic and story resources to make encounters important in a long-term sense.




Thematic and story resources are already required to make encounters important in a long-term sense. It's only in this thread that people have got the idea that ONE DAY can be defined as "long term".



> This is a style of play that totally redefines the basis of D&D gameplay...and if the players aren't concerned with deep roleplaying then yes it does become a railroad as you force them to care about your story.




Thematic exploration != railroading. Hint: who defines the theme?


----------



## hong

pemerton said:
			
		

> You asserted at your post #502 that "If a battle does not use up per-day resources, nothing is lost in engaging in that battle. This means . . . [t]he only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff."
> 
> I deny this. There can be other significant impacts, namely thematic ones.




As well as buttkicking ones. Impacts can be positive, ie the opportunity to showboat against minor opposition.

In the 2nd-last module of the AOW adventure path, my 19th level swordsage met a bunch of avolakia priests holing up in individual rooms. There ain't nothing like dealing 190 points of damage with diamond nightmare blade to a hapless CR 15 monster, explodiating it in one blow.

Of course, after the 3rd such explodiation in a row, it all became a bit samey. But those first 3 explodiations were FUN.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> No, that would be the case when *they're dead*.  Hit points are a resource.  Losing further hitpoints to a kobold scout is an example of losing further resources.



We're talking about the 3.X paradigm that a CR-appropriate encounter will consume 20-25% of the party's resources. This means that after four CR-appropriate encounters, an average party will be right around 10% resources. That's certainly not enough to survive another CR-appropriate encounter, and even a substantially weaker encounter is going to be a dicey proposition at best. Of course, you could throw an incredibly weak encounter at them that only takes 5% of their resources - but that just means that afterward, they have an even greater need to rest.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Well what if something runs through the threatened areas of 15 ogres while wearing only a loincloth?  Is that a problem with the AoO rules?  I'd say it's a problem with the player not making good choices.
> 
> A party that rests at 0% resources within enemy territory must cross it's fingers and hope for the best.  Like they guy in the loincloth, it's not an example that I see much purpose in contemplating.



Well, you are the one arguing in favor of using wandering monsters to keep the PCs from resting. So if you didn't contemplate something like this example, IMO you probably should have.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Really?  Your players must have a death wish.  Mine would haul out of there if they weren't trying already.  It was one thing to camp at 20% resources when you thought you might be able to deal with a scout patrol.  It's another thing to be discovered by that patrol, take further hitpoints of damage, and face the possibility that a scout unknowingly was able to return to his leadership and inform them of your position.  IME the party that gets ambushed and survives is going to flee the area.



I agree, as I noted when I said "They'll probably try to get to somewhere safer this time."

But the location in which the PCs rest is really irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains that, under the 3.X design paradigm, the average result is that the PCs have to rest after every four CR-appropriate encounters. The complaint is that that leads to ridiculously short adventuring days. If your solution to the complaint is to throw wandering monsters at the party when they try to rest, then nothing changes if the party can just avoid the monsters by retreating to a safe location.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think that tactical situation is more complicated than you are recognizing.  If you don't play a resource management style game, perhaps there's a chance that you don't understand all of the situations that come up in such a game.  IMO you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions.



I understand how the resource management game works just fine. And I'm not jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Let me explain. You say that using wandering monsters to deter the PCs from resting will deal with the problem of the short adventuring "day." I'm saying that won't work, because of the way resource consumption is handled in the 3.X rules. After four CR-appropriate encounters, the average party will be at anywhere from 0-20% of their resources. At this point, under your suggestion, there are four possibilities:

1. The party continues on without resting. The next encounter wipes them out. TPK.

2. The party rests and is hit with a wandering monster patrol that they can't defeat. TPK.

3. The party rests and is hit with a wandering monster patrol that they can defeat. They do, and then they rest again, perhaps moving to a safer location. No change from the current situation, except that the party fought an extremely weak group of monsters that they otherwise wouldn't have.

4. The party rests and is not hit with a wandering monster patrol, perhaps because they moved to a safe location first. No change from the current situation.

So as we can see, using your suggested system will either result in no significant change from the current situation, or a TPK. The design of the 3.X rules basically guarantees this, barring unusual parties or unusual circumstances. Unless there is a possibility I missed - in which case, feel free to point it out to me.


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> Well, you are the one arguing in favor of using wandering monsters to keep the PCs from resting.




I didn't mean to suggest this if I did.  I don't actually DM like this.  I don't do anything in order to keep my players from doing anything.  I run the adventure according to whatever seems logical to me (I know that's pretty general.)  

For example - say the PCs are invading a fortress complex.  There are probably pretty few EL=APL encounters in the fortress or else such a mission would be evaluated as being very dangerous.  The way I design it, it's probably a bunch of mooks, individual encounters of below average, and then a BBEG type encounter of APL or higher.  Part of my planning for the fortress is to give some thought to what happens if PCs camp in the area.

What I'm arguing for is that camping is not a situation of auto-recharge the way Wyatt seems to treat it in the blog entry. 



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> The fact remains that, under the 3.X design paradigm, the average result is that the PCs have to rest after every four CR-appropriate encounters. The complaint is that that leads to ridiculously short adventuring days.




Well ridiculous according to who?  Fight a wild boar with a sharp stick and see if you feel like running a marathon next in the same day.  Granted, these are heroic types but more than four encounters a day might be the ridiculous thing.  



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> So as we can see, using your suggested system will either result in no significant change from the current situation, or a TPK.




No significant change?!  If they successfully rest then they get their hitpoints back.  If they fail, then they retreat - losing more time from the mission or they die.  Even retreating and losing a day would be a significant change in the parties circumstances - it would give the bad guys time to regroup and plan defenses for example.  

These other outcomes are easy for me to think of because these are actually real results for the kind of game that I run.  You're trying to suggest to me that this method of playing results in TPKs - you would think I would know that.  In few cases is does resting result in no significant change besides healing etc., and even in those cases the fact that there has been no significant change is not something that's readily apparent to the PCs because they're in unfamiliar territory.  They don't know that they weren't spotted the night before and that something nasty isn't waiting for them as a result.  

Because of the day-long time frame involved, the possibilities are much more varied and plausible than the relatively short list of things that can transpire in the 60 seconds until all abilities are refreshed.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> For example - say the PCs are invading a fortress complex.  There are probably pretty few EL=APL encounters in the fortress or else such a mission would be evaluated as being very dangerous.  The way I design it, it's probably a bunch of mooks, individual encounters of below average, and then a BBEG type encounter of APL or higher.  Part of my planning for the fortress is to give some thought to what happens if PCs camp in the area.




Camp in the area? How quaint.



> Because of the day-long time frame involved, the possibilities are much more varied and plausible than the relatively short list of things that can transpire in the 60 seconds until all abilities are refreshed.




Only if you think of RPGs purely in resource-depletion terms. Which is just so videogamey.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Encounters that fall below all thresholds of significance are boring.  The mechanical theshold of significance is the easiest and most obvious threshold of significance for a DM to achieve.  It therefore follows, to me, that DMs will raise the mechanical challenge of their encounters beyond the threshold of significance.
> 
> Moreover, since this change is hailed as solving the "9-9:15 adventuring day" problem, and since DMs who target other, non-mechanical, thresholds of significance are unlikely to have this problem in the first place (since it is derived from the mechanical threshold of significance), the DMs this is intended as a solution for are the ones least likely to continue using encounters that fall below the mechanical theshold of significance.



Your first sentence is true.

The rest of your first paragraph is probably true, given a certain assumption about the interests of D&D players and GMs.

Your second paragraph, however, ignores the point that for those GMs who _do_ want to rely on other thresholds of signficance than the mechanical, the move from per-day to per-encounter may facilitate that, by stopping the mechanical issue getting in the way. Hong makes this point well:



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Of course it will. Not in the sense that everybody will suddenly start having six dozen fights before lunch, but in the sense that they will not feel vaguely foolish for forging on after the first fight, despite the rational decision being to stop.





			
				hong said:
			
		

> There are MANY reasons to have fights even if no daily resources are expended.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Yes, you can do all this within the confines of per-day balancing. But that's putting the cart before the horse.



If the design of 4e actually succeeds in making gameplay based on these other thresholds of significance easier, then it might even change the metagame priorities of GMs and players, therefore falsifying to some extent the second half of your (that is, RC's) first paragraph above.

That this is so does not prove that per-encounter is preferable to per-day. But it does show that it can serve a rational function, of facilitating a type of play that the current rules do not. And that is a type of play in which the 9 o'clock until quarter past problem is less likely to come up.


----------



## pemerton

pemerton said:
			
		

> There can be other significant impacts, namely thematic ones.





			
				hong said:
			
		

> As well as buttkicking ones. Impacts can be positive, ie the opportunity to showboat against minor opposition.



Fair enough. I think in this thread we're broadly in agreement.


----------



## Stalker0

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Well ridiculous according to who?




Many stories and movies. Heroes fight battle after battle and keep going strong. You never see them rest after a few fights.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> Camp in the area? How quaint.




I suppose they could just set up a disco.




			
				hong said:
			
		

> Only if you think of RPGs purely in resource-depletion terms. Which is just so videogamey.




Actually Pacman just kept going on until he either finished the level or got killed.  It would have hurt the plot to have made him rest I suppose.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I suppose they could just set up a disco.




Or teleport to one.



> Actually Pacman just kept going on until he either finished the level or got killed.  It would have hurt the plot to have made him rest I suppose.




Exactly.


----------



## Celebrim

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Many stories and movies. Heroes fight battle after battle and keep going strong. You never see them rest after a few fights.




I'm not sure what you mean by that, but the classic hero's tale requires him to be defeated halfway into the journey, only to recover and comeback with new found power.  So, in a sense you always see the hero rest someway into the conflict.  It is difficult for me to think of, for example, a movie with a central heroic protagonist where the hero did not.


----------



## gizmo33

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Many stories and movies. Heroes fight battle after battle and keep going strong. You never see them rest after a few fights.




Yea, like that time when the Fellowship was in Moria...um...well.  Like that time that Conan was in the Tower of the Elephant and he fought all those...uh...he fought one spider.  Then there's the Princess Bride - I think he fights the duellist, then the giant, then the poison drinking thing really isn't a fight, then he fights a rodent of unusual size...wait, I'm getting close to 4.  Then he surrenders!  Dagnabbit!  Hopefully I'm forgetting a battle somewhere.  I was so close.

Hey, what about the new Halloween movie?  I'm sure Michael Myers kills more than 4 teenagers before camping.  And who says they're not an appropriate EL?  

Hmmm.   Sarcasm is cumbersome when written.  Are you sure those stories involved APL=EL encounters?  Maybe in those stories the monster's CR was far below the party's level.  I actually can't think of any movies with more than four combats a day.  Certainly not Predator (boy that's a movie about resource attrition if I've ever seen one).  Willow?  the Latest Harry Potter?  Maybe I should just wait for your response.

(edit:  How about 300!  I don't quite remember the details but there had to be more than 4 fights a day for those dudes.  Of course one could quibble about just how chipper and refreshed they were after 4 fights, but it was hard to tell because the lighting was dark in spots.  Maybe they had just as much energy after 4 fights as they did when they started?)


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yea, like that time when the Fellowship was in Moria...um...well.  Like that time that Conan was in the Tower of the Elephant and he fought all those...uh...he fought one spider.  Then there's the Princess Bride - I think he fights the duellist, then the giant, then the poison drinking thing really isn't a fight, then he fights a rodent of unusual size...wait, I'm getting close to 4.  Then he surrenders!  Dagnabbit!  Hopefully I'm forgetting a battle somewhere.  I was so close.




Yes. You were so close to recognising the fundamental point, namely the conspicuous lack of a 4-encounters-per-day paradigm in all of these. (LotR is basically a whole bunch of days where nothing happens in terms of "encounters", with a few days where there's one fight, and then one or two massive, all-day set-piece battles. As was pointed out by Karinsdad, IIRC.)



> Hmmm.   Sarcasm is cumbersome when written.




Nah.


----------



## IanArgent

Relevant or not to the conversation...

Take a look at NWN2. A game where "resting" is a quick affair - essentially rutning all of your per-day abilities into per-zone abilities (or even per encounter abilities). One that that made me go "oh, my, how broken" at first: NWN2 does not enforce material components, and you can have a sorcerer with stoneskin as a known spell...

This basically means that my "stopping point" is when the stoneskins wear out. It also means I don't have to tote a cleric around becaue no-one takes HP damage(which is good, because at the point I am in-game, I don't _have_ a cleric). At any rate, hitting the "rest" button refills the party's hitpoints anyway. Essentially, my party's hit point totals are irrelevant (or mostly so); it's the amount of damage left on the stoneskin. The game is still quite fun, fairly challenging (I _have_ been TPK'd by what I assume are appropriate-level encounters since I'm not going out of my way to grind XP); but the essential resource-management paradigm of TT D&D is entirely out the window.


----------



## Grog

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to suggest this if I did.  I don't actually DM like this.  I don't do anything in order to keep my players from doing anything.  I run the adventure according to whatever seems logical to me (I know that's pretty general.)



Oh. Well, someone else claimed that you had suggested this, and you didn't contradict the post, so I thought you had accepted it. But maybe you just didn't see the post.

In any case, if you don't think that wandering monsters are a cure to the short adventuring day problem, then we are in agreement on that point. The short adventuring day does not stem from resting per se, but rather from the mechanic that forces the PCs to rest after (generally) every four encounters. 



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> What I'm arguing for is that camping is not a situation of auto-recharge the way Wyatt seems to treat it in the blog entry.



Well, what you have to realize is that there's really no middle ground here. Either the PCs can rest when they need to, or they can't. (There is no partial resting in 3E the way there was in 1E - eight hours of rest gives the PCs all their spells back, and anything less than that gives them nothing). And if they can't rest, they stand a strong chance of being killed by the encounter that prevented them from resting, and even if they survive it, they're not going to be able to do anything else until they _can_ rest, because they don't have any resources remaining.


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> For extra credit I'll also say that the DM fudges dice reguarly because for every "woohoo we got lucky and won" situation that occurs, those same characters are killed a week later by a "uh-oh, we got unlucky and lost".  The DM has fixed this through fudging.



An alternative is that the players have earned "plot control" tokens - Fate Points or whatever - and have spent them in the unlucky cases. And these tokens need not necessarily be resources, in the sense at issue in this thead, if the players earn them through their own choices pertaining to thematic exploration (or if in some other way the players, rather than the GM, get to make the choices that determine the distribution of these tokens).

I should add, I don't say this by way of disagreement, but more by way of observation and comment. I've already asked if anyone has any insight into how 4e will use Action Points. I'll ask again, because this seems very relevant to understanding the force of the criticisms that Gizmo33 and others are making of per-encounter resources.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:
			
		

> To:Jackelope & Hong...



I hope you'll accept an answer from someone else.

The problem with assuming that the 9-9:15 problem will be solved by per-encounter is this...



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> If, as has been suggested, I am able to throw more "significant" encounters in terms of in-combat resource expenditure(thus life/death) type of encounters then the average of PC's being killed or even a TPK rises significantly with each encounter(law of averges).  The PC's will always be at more risk than a single monster encounter for dying, having more "significant" encounters, as defined above, raises this exponentially.  And in fact can end up putting a longer halt on gameplay than a days' rest(no ressurection at lower levels).
> 
> B.) If I am throwing "insignificant" encounters at them, well first I can do the same in 3e by having monsters with way lower CR's than the characters.  But then this leads to(as has been defined by Hong) numerous boring encounters.  So what exactly has been accomplished by per-encounter abilities to solve the 9-9:15 problem?  It seems like a smokescreen that confuses the issue but results in nothing.



If "signficance" is defined as "impacting on the resources available in future encounters, including living party members" then it is correct that the only way to get significant encounters in a per-encounter system is to have more life/death encounters.

Furthermore, if "signficance" is defined in that way then non life/death encounters will tend to be insignificant (= boring) in a per-encounter system.

But "signficance" does not need to be defined in this fashion. If defined in some other fashion, then we can see the attraction of per-encounter for some people: it permits the use of encounters that are significant in this alternative sense, without the issue of per-day resource management getting in the way.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> <snip>In the per-encounter model there is no granularity in my encounter design, it is either a live/die encounter where I have built it so that they're in-combat resources are all expected to be used or an insignificant encounter where only per-encounter and at-will abilities should be used.



The defenders of per-encounter are not using "signficance" as equivalent to "having an effect on the number of resources available in the future". Hong, Jackelope King and I have all canvassed alternative notions of signficance.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am also, I admit, skeptical of the claim that party resources can be balanced both in terms of how good they are and how often they can get used, while still maintaining the flavour and party roles that makes having more than one class mean having more than one type of experience in the game.



This comment seems to presuppose that the overwhelming determinant of the experience of a class is its resource-management aspects. It is possible, however, that the 4e designers are looking to other aspects of play and the play experience. These could include aspects as diverse as flavour text (hugely important in many RPG experiences), resolution method, the relationship between movement, actions and resource deployment, etc.


----------



## pemerton

Grog said:
			
		

> As I said, I'm sure everyone will choose the adventure where there's a possibility of failure over the adventure with the long string of guaranteed wins.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How many guaranteed wins per adventure can there be before the adventure suffers?



I assume that "guaranteed win" means that the outcome of the adventure does not depend upon the players' choices?

If that's what it does mean, then there are all sorts of ways that an adventure can not be a guaranteed win, but where death in combat is not the principal issue that the PCs confront.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No, that's what happens when the arguments being made "against you" don't actually speak to the points you have made.
> 
> Ex:
> 
> Person 1: "I don't think that this system will solve the problem that Wyatt says it will."
> 
> Person 2: "Sure it will. It will make wizards more fun to play."
> 
> Person 1: "The problem Wyatt identifies isn't that wizards are unfun."
> 
> Person 2: "Of course wizards are unfun now! This will help."





			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> So, the quoted dialog might result because some people think they know the reason how the 15 minute adventure day came into being, and this being that playing a spell caster that holds back most of the time isn't fun, which leads to a different encounter dynamic.



Excellent point.


----------



## Treebore

You know I played in two first level games this past week. One last Friday and another last Sunday. In the Sunday game we had a fighter, a Ranger, a cleric, and a thief. We rested after  a major battle, then went into a cave complex, fought six zombies, then moved on, fought two medium size spiders (fortunately saves versus poison were made), continued on until we exited the cave complex and found a Citadel in a valley. We then broke out grappling hooks, rolled a natural 20 to get it through the window 35 feet up, and started to climb. The Citadel appears to be empty, but we decided against going  in the front door.

We did all of that without a single rest after the major battle.

Friday was DCC 1 "Idylls of the Rat King". We are about half way through the second level, fought a whole bunch of Dire Rats, Goblins, and were rat Goblins, even fought 6 skeletons in a room where we found a clue about there being a vampire somewhere. We rested two times.

We rested because the fighters were low on HP's, which was in turn because the cleric was out of spells. So the resource management issues were also because of the fighters lack of HP's, as well as lack of spells for our wizard and cleric. Plus the Wizard has been pretty darn effective with their crossbow. He has killed about as many creatures as any of the rest of us. We are level one or two? Level two, after all. Everyones to hit is within a couple of points of each others.

So we rested very little, and when I asked if anyone had a problem with us resting (due to this thread), they said, "No, we need to recover HP's and spells." When the DM's asked how we liked the game sessions we all responded, "Great fun. Looking forward to the next session!"


So I found it kind of funny that two groups of 5 or 6 people had no problems with "resource management" considering how its being debated in this thread.

Just thought I would share those experiences.


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> has anyone suggested that the "per-encounter resource' model actually increases the possible number of dimensions of interest?  Any reason that an encounter is interesting in "per-encounter 4E", it's interesting in 3E.  All the 4E resource situation does is eliminate operational consequences.



Your last sentence is true. Thus, operational considerations will not get in the way of other dimensions of interest. This is not an absurd design goal.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Treebore said:
			
		

> You know I played in two first level games this past week. One last Friday and another last Sunday. In the Sunday game we had a fighter, a Ranger, a cleric, and a thief. We rested after  a major battle, then went into a cave complex, fought six zombies, then moved on, fought two medium size spiders (fortunately saves versus poison were made), continued on until we exited the cave complex and found a Citadel in a valley. We then broke out grappling hooks, rolled a natural 20 to get it through the window 35 feet up, and started to climb. The Citadel appears to be empty, but we decided against going  in the front door.
> 
> We did all of that without a single rest after the major battle.
> 
> Friday was DCC 1 "Idylls of the Rat King". We are about half way through the second level, fought a whole bunch of Dire Rats, Goblins, and were rat Goblins, even fought 6 skeletons in a room where we found a clue about there being a vampire somewhere. We rested two times.
> 
> We rested because the fighters were low on HP's, which was in turn because the cleric was out of spells. So the resource management issues were also because of the fighters lack of HP's, as well as lack of spells for our wizard and cleric. Plus the Wizard has been pretty darn effective with their crossbow. He has killed about as many creatures as any of the rest of us. We are level one or two? Level two, after all. Everyones to hit is within a couple of points of each others.
> 
> So we rested very little, and when I asked if anyone had a problem with us resting (due to this thread), they said, "No, we need to recover HP's and spells." When the DM's asked how we liked the game sessions we all responded, "Great fun. Looking forward to the next session!"
> 
> 
> So I found it kind of funny that two groups of 5 or 6 people had no problems with "resource management" considering how its being debated in this thread.
> 
> Just thought I would share those experiences.




Your experience are certainly welcome, and I think they are valid, and might be a typical experience for 1st to 2nd level characters.

But I still like to add a few comments. I think what is noticeable is that the dynamic you describe changes with levels: 

1) As you point out, the Wizards attack bonus is just a few points off from the Fighters. Even though he is not doing wizardly things, he can at least be effective with his crossbow. That doesn't hold true at higher levels. (But it is yet another problem in D&D 3.x, that is not related to resource management - except of course that only a wizard out of spell resources has to care about his attack bonus with crossbows or his Quarterstaff  )

2) Your group doesn't yet rely on the D&D 3.x typical Wand of Cure Light Wounds. (It this level, they are rarely available). If you had them, the Cleric and Wizard would have been out of spells, but thanks to the Wands, everyone would have been at full hitpoints. Now, suddenly the Clerics and Wizards would be the only ones that actually need to rest.
(This certainly indicates that, maybe, Wand of Cure Light Wounds are the problem. They are certainly a critical factor here.)


----------



## Geron Raveneye

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Your experience are certainly welcome, and I think they are valid, and might be a typical experience for 1st to 2nd level characters.
> 
> But I still like to add a few comments. I think what is noticeable is that the dynamic you describe changes with levels:
> 
> 1) As you point out, the Wizards attack bonus is just a few points off from the Fighters. Even though he is not doing wizardly things, he can at least be effective with his crossbow. That doesn't hold true at higher levels. (But it is yet another problem in D&D 3.x, that is not related to resource management - except of course that only a wizard out of spell resources has to care about his attack bonus with crossbows or his Quarterstaff  )
> 
> 2) Your group doesn't yet rely on the D&D 3.x typical Wand of Cure Light Wounds. (It this level, they are rarely available). If you had them, the Cleric and Wizard would have been out of spells, but thanks to the Wands, everyone would have been at full hitpoints. Now, suddenly the Clerics and Wizards would be the only ones that actually need to rest.
> (This certainly indicates that, maybe, Wand of Cure Light Wounds are the problem. They are certainly a critical factor here.)




1) This problem appears at levels where the wizard doesn't run out of spells that quickly (if he is played a little bit more than just "blow the biggest guns immediately"  ), before that his BAB doesn't limp behind that badly (I call a 3 or 4-point difference not bad when comparing somebody who studied instead of training swordplay with a trained fighter. 20% difference in to-hit chance should be granted at some point). Also, at those levels the wizard is able to stock up on self-scribed scrolls, that's what the free _Scribe Scroll_ feat is there for after all.  

2) This might indeed indicate a problem with _Cure Light Wounds_ wands, specifically in groups that already have a source of healing (the cleric). Personally, I always prefer to hand out healing potions...easier to limit, easier to explain (for me) because they are cheaper to manufacture than a full wand of CLW, and usually only when the group doesn't have a cleric, or are all 1st level.


----------



## CleverName

Treebore said:
			
		

> So I found it kind of funny that two groups of 5 or 6 people had no problems with "resource management" considering how its being debated in this thread.
> 
> Just thought I would share those experiences.




Thanks for sharing, but I will point out your on a *10-page thread * most of these folks think that there *is a problem* with the current system and they are looking forward to more _at will_ and _per encounter_ options. 

So, even with your anecdotes, it is pretty safe to say, that the majority of folks on this board disagree with you. I would even go so far as to say most of the folks who play D&D would disagree with you -- but we could argue that for another 10+ pages.

I, personally, look forward to more time at the table _adventuring_. I get to play maybe 4 hours at a stretch - giving me only 10-15 minutes back (during a long adventure) is going to be worth a lot.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> Your first sentence is true.
> 
> The rest of your first paragraph is probably true, given a certain assumption about the interests of D&D players and GMs.
> 
> Your second paragraph, however, ignores the point that for those GMs who _do_ want to rely on other thresholds of signficance than the mechanical, the move from per-day to per-encounter may facilitate that, by stopping the mechanical issue getting in the way.





This is true, but unless the vast majority of DMs is somehow converted to using other thresholds of significance, the fact that Hong and others benefit doesn not imply that this change will have the effect of removing the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem, as Wyatt claims.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> I assume that "guaranteed win" means that the outcome of the adventure does not depend upon the players' choices?
> 
> If that's what it does mean, then there are all sorts of ways that an adventure can not be a guaranteed win, but where death in combat is not the principal issue that the PCs confront.





A fight is either one in which you will win, given even modest skill at playing, or one in which there is a clear chance to lose.

IOW, a fight is either win/lose or it is not.  If it is not, it is either a clear "win" (10th lvl fighter vs. 4 goblins, for example) or a clear lose (1st lvl fighter vs Tarrasque, for example).  "Lose" does not necessarily mean death.

The argument that auto-wins and auto-loses are boring has been made endlessly on EN World with relation to 3.X.  That it will suddenly cease to be made with 4.0........well, I am a bit skeptical about that.

The mechanical threshold of significance model has been used as the standard for D&D for what now?  Thirty years or more?  There is little doubt in my mind that it is the standard for the average D&D group.  That it will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0.........well, again, colour me skeptical.

The two factors above has caused many DMs to increase the mechanical challenges of their combats above the suggested guidelines in the DMG, making more combats be of the win/lose variety.  Again, that this will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0...............skeptical.

It is always true that you have better odds of winning a win/lose fight with more resources.  That this will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0.......skeptical.

That the per-encounter model will resolve these problems..............I'm very skeptical, and I've said why I am exhaustively.   There is nothing more that I can say that isn't simply repeating myself.

Here's a prediction, though, and we'll see whether I am right or wrong.  Within the first year after 4.0 is released, we'll start hearing about the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem again.  They might call it the 9-10 adventuring day, but it will be the same problem.  

Now, who wants to lay odds that I am wrong?  Because in two years we'll know who was right, who was wrong, and who's complaining about the short adventuring day.  Time will tell.  It always does.


RC


----------



## D.Shaffer

Imaro said:
			
		

> Uhm...I would say them all being at 80%, for balance reasons would make more sense.  Now I could see that balanced percentage being achieved in different ways through different abilities but what I don't see is all of us expending our per-day abilities and suddenly the wizard is at 80%...the fighter at 20%...the rogue at 100% and the cleric at 10% efficiency.



Again, it's never been that way in the past.  It might be that way in 4th edition, but making the assumption that because wizards are at 80% when they use up all their per day abilities means that ALL classes will be at 80% when THEY use up all their per day abilities is likely to be a false assumption.  (IMO)  Assuming it as FACT when trying to make an argument leads to a bad argument.

I find it much more likely that classes will have a mix of effectiveness with their abilities, some having more powerful 'At Will' abilities with less powerful Per Day/Per Encounter abilities, and others going the other way around.  Much like current and previous versions of the game.


----------



## Imaro

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Again, it's never been that way in the past.  It might be that way in 4th edition, but making the assumption that because wizards are at 80% when they use up all their per day abilities means that ALL classes will be at 80% when THEY use up all their per day abilities is likely to be a false assumption.  (IMO)  Assuming it as FACT when trying to make an argument leads to a bad argument.
> 
> I find it much more likely that classes will have a mix of effectiveness with their abilities, some having more powerful 'At Will' abilities with less powerful Per Day/Per Encounter abilities, and others going the other way around.  Much like current and previous versions of the game.




It's never been that way because total resource expenditure was controlled by the players, so it was on them and their decisions how powerful they were in any given encounter after the first.  

Let me put it this way...if you give me a choice between a character who will be at 80% or a character who will be at 30% after using their per-day abiltity, I would be stupid to pick the 30% character and creating such an imbalance is bad game design.  A per-day ability can only be used in any encounter one time, so as long as I don't use it Im effectively fighting at 30% and in the one fight where I use it I'm 100% and then 30% after that until I rest.  

Now with the other character I'm at 80% until I use my per-day ability, which then I hit 100% and drop bac k down to 80%...This would be a huge imbalance and once again bad game design where the first character(30%) will still end up causing the second(80%) to rest after expending his per-day ability.  

I could see a minor discrepancy(at most 5%) so every character is between 75-85% effectiveness, but ultimately it has to be close or you won't be able to continue as has been stated as a benefit to this style, and encounters will be wildly imbalanced vs. certain character types.  Thus it's safe to assume an 80% as baseline.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Here's a prediction, though, and we'll see whether I am right or wrong.  Within the first year after 4.0 is released, we'll start hearing about the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem again.  They might call it the 9-10 adventuring day, but it will be the same problem.
> RC



Sometimes I get th feeling we are discussing to many things at once.

If resources were purely encounter (and round) based, there is no need for a 9-9:15 adventuring day. The only reason to rest the group is because you are out of resoruces and the only way to replenish them is resting. 
If that is no longer the case, the party only rests if it feels like it. Which might mean never.

This in turn would obviously lead to other problems (the "boy, do you remember 8 o'clock when we were just 1st level?"), but that's not related to the 9-9:15 business.

Now, what will a mixed system lead to, as D&D 4 will apparently be?
Well, we will see for certain next year, but what can we guesstimate?

It still depends a lot on play style. For some players, being at 80 % of their resources might be enough to get into the next fight. Some might still feel that's to little, so they rest anyway. Well, you can't help them.

How will encouners change? There will be less need and less desire for encounters that serve only to "steal" some resources (like hitpoints, cure spells or magic missiles) from the player. Which might lead to more encounters being "tougher" and the average "death risk" being higher, because there is no point in easy encounters (except to allow the players to show off). But it might make it easier to have a flexible flow through each adventure.

How will balance change? Well, if spellcasters and fighters are more balanced according to the "per encounter" scheme, they will remain similar power, regardless of how many encounters are thrown on them per day. If the group is out of resources, all of them probably are, so no one is complaining that it's just the spellcasters that are forcing the group to rest.

What I think is important to keep in mind is that the designers claim that the system is pretty tightly integrated and builds on each other (which might not be great for those that want to tinker with subsets of the system). If that is the case, the fears and worries we might have have been noticeable by the designers, too, and they designed other subsystems of the game to take these into account. 

For me, the fun is speculating how they might have pulled it off. But maybe I am overtly optimistic. But every once and then a post, blog entry or article from the designers make me think that the are pretty clever and that my optimismn is justified.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> Yes. You were so close to recognising the fundamental point, namely the conspicuous lack of a 4-encounters-per-day paradigm in all of these.




That's the fundemental point?  The point I was responding to was "heroes fight all of the time and never rest".  Stalker0 never said what you're saying here.    



			
				hong said:
			
		

> (LotR is basically a whole bunch of days where nothing happens in terms of "encounters", with a few days where there's one fight, and then one or two massive, all-day set-piece battles. As was pointed out by Karinsdad, IIRC.)




Last time in 3E that a whole bunch of days passed when nothing happens I said "a whole bunch of days pass, and nothing happens".  Are you suggesting that 4 encounters per day is a minimum?


----------



## gizmo33

Grog said:
			
		

> Oh. Well, someone else claimed that you had suggested this, and you didn't contradict the post, so I thought you had accepted it. But maybe you just didn't see the post.




As with the recent "movie" post - it's not uncommon for folks to wade in and make unsubstantiated claims (I mean that literally, not as in claims without merit, but those with simply no supporting information).  I can't respond to everything like that, sometimes I don't even know where to begin.  I'm having some of that trouble here:



			
				Grog said:
			
		

> In any case, if you don't think that wandering monsters are a cure to the short adventuring day problem, then we are in agreement on that point.




This is not a completely accurate summary of what I was trying to say on the point of wandering monsters.  Basically, in framing the "4-a-day" problem, people where characterizing things a certain way that I disagreed had to be that way.  Wandering monsters were given as an example of something that happens that makes resting potentially something other than uneventful.  The implication that I was countering was that resting had no meaning to the game, and there was no significance to the decision other than just taking up time.  It's hard now to reconstruct the context that developed.  Hopefully this will at least hint at an explanation:  if I don't see the same problems as you do, I would hardly be proposing a solution to the same set of problems.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> Your last sentence is true. Thus, operational considerations will not get in the way of other dimensions of interest. This is not an absurd design goal.




Did I say it was?  I specifically try to avoid using the word "absurd" because IMO it gets overused in this forum and used improperly on top of it.  I don't agree with some of the design changes that we're debating, but I don't think of them as absurd.


----------



## D.Shaffer

Imaro said:
			
		

> Let me put it this way...if you give me a choice between a character who will be at 80% or a character who will be at 30% after using their per-day abiltity, I would be stupid to pick the 30% character and creating such an imbalance is bad game design.  A per-day ability can only be used in any encounter one time, so as long as I don't use it Im effectively fighting at 30% and in the one fight where I use it I'm 100% and then 30% after that until I rest.



...You realise you just described EVERY version of the wizard that we've currently had, correct? The reason it was, supposedly, balanced is that the per X abilities arent the only resources they need to keep track of.  4th Ed will likely follow a similar mix of resource tracking of various sorts.


----------



## gizmo33

CleverName said:
			
		

> So, even with your anecdotes, it is pretty safe to say, that the majority of folks on this board disagree with you. I would even go so far as to say most of the folks who play D&D would disagree with you -- but we could argue that for another 10+ pages.




Maybe you could substantiate these claims.  Doesn't anybody on this thread feel the need to do this anymore?  (I'm still waiting for a movie example!)  Is there some poll somewhere that you're referencing?  I'll stop now before I waste another 10 pages asking obvious questions.  If you guys don't care enough about what you're saying to provide examples and/or evidence, why should I?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> For me, the fun is speculating how they might have pulled it off. But maybe I am overtly optimistic. But every once and then a post, blog entry or article from the designers make me think that the are pretty clever and that my optimismn is justified.





So, does this mean that you are laying odds that I am wrong, or laying odds that I am right, or refusing to lay odds?

Because the new D&D will be fully operational in less than a year.  After a year's play (or less) I expect that same old complaint to resurface _if, as Wyatt's blog implies, the change in resource management is how the designers tackled the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem_.  I certainly agree that the problem could be tackled in other ways; just not this way.

RC


----------



## Imaro

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> ...You realise you just described EVERY version of the wizard that we've currently had, correct? The reason it was, supposedly, balanced is that the per X abilities arent the only resources they need to keep track of.  4th Ed will likely follow a similar mix of resource tracking of various sorts.




What?  What're you talking about.  In D&D 3e a wizard decides what percentage he's at for the next encounter, just like evryone else.  If the party stumbles upon 4 goblins and the wizard chooses to use a flask of acid or crossbow in this encounter then next encounter he's still at 100% or maybe less if he took damage.  What exactly are you saying?


----------



## D.Shaffer

Imaro said:
			
		

> What?  What're you talking about.  In D&D 3e a wizard decides what percentage he's at for the next encounter, just like evryone else.  If the party stumbles upon 4 goblins and the wizard chooses to use a flask of acid or crossbow in this encounter then next encounter he's still at 100% or maybe less if he took damage.  What exactly are you saying?



What I'm saying is that the per X (day, encounter, round, whatever) abilities arent the only resources that the classes have to balance.  The wizard, in 3rd edition terms and previously, was the very definition of your 'badly designed 30%'. You said it would be stupid to ever play the 30% you described previously.

Again, here's what you said.


> Let me put it this way...if you give me a choice between a character who will be at 80% or a character who will be at 30% after using their per-day abiltity, I would be stupid to pick the 30% character and creating such an imbalance is bad game design. A per-day ability can only be used in any encounter one time, so as long as I don't use it Im effectively fighting at 30% and in the one fight where I use it I'm 100% and then 30% after that until I rest.



How does a 3rd edition wizard NOT fit this criteria?  And yet people played wizards all the time.   Why? they have other means and other resources that (in theory) balance them with the other classes.  I see no reason this wont continue in future editions, just with less 'per day' abilities.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I expect that same old complaint to resurface _if, as Wyatt's blog implies, the change in resource management is how the designers tackled the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem_.  I certainly agree that the problem could be tackled in other ways; just not this way.




Wyatt's latest blog entry, the link posted a few pages back on this thread, actually has some positive things to say about resource management and makes it seem like it will stay in the game.  This "per-encounter only" resource system was a though experiment for me - I never thought they'd go that far but folks on this thread actually defend it.  Monte Cook in his blog (also cited somewhere on this thread) also stops well short of removing daily resources entirely.  In terms of what 4E will actually become (which, as I've mentioned, was not really my topic on this thread) I don't think it will be encounter-level only.


----------



## Imaro

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that the per X (day, encounter, round, whatever) abilities arent the only resources that the classes have to balance.  The wizard, in 3rd edition terms and previously, was the very definition of your 'badly designed 30%'. You said it would be stupid to ever play the 30% you described previously.
> 
> Again, here's what you said.
> How does a 3rd edition wizard NOT fit this criteria?  And yet people played wizards all the time.   Why? they have other means and other resources that (in theory) balance them with the other classes.  I see no reason this wont continue in future editions, just with less 'per day' abilities.




How is the wizard a badly designed 30%...the wizard doesn't operate at 30% capacity, use an ability at 100% capacity and then drop back to 30%.  Once again in the 3e modewl the player of the wizard decides at what rate and how much of his resources he spends in any one encounter.

In the new model it's a set rate no matter what...all of your per-encounter ansd at-will abilities will reset with every "encounter".  Your per-day ability doesn't actually change your power level except in one specific encounter.  Takes the question of how many resources you want to use in an encounter, compared to how much you need left for further encounters out of the players hands.  I'm sorry these are two different models and there isn't a corellary here.  One *you* decide through management of your resources over time.  In the other it is a standard pre-set level of efficiency for evry encounter, with what I'll call a "power boost" that only affects one encounter .


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Wyatt's latest blog entry, the link posted a few pages back on this thread, actually has some positive things to say about resource management and makes it seem like it will stay in the game.  This "per-encounter only" resource system was a though experiment for me - I never thought they'd go that far but folks on this thread actually defend it.  Monte Cook in his blog (also cited somewhere on this thread) also stops well short of removing daily resources entirely.  In terms of what 4E will actually become (which, as I've mentioned, was not really my topic on this thread) I don't think it will be encounter-level only.




My conclusions are not based around the complete removal of daily resources.  AFAICT, removing all long-term resource management (while it would have other effects I would not enjoy) would solve the problem of PCs resting to recover long-term resources completely.  As long as both a benefit for resting exists, and a cost for resting does not, prudent play suggests that you rest.

Of course, as I said, time will tell.

WotC might have some other tricks up their sleeves to ameleorate the effect I predict as well (using Action Points does this to some extent, and we have been told they will be used in 4e).  I suspect, however, that the problem will remain (or even get worse) because the problem is not, AFAICT, based upon what the resources actually _are_, but rather based upon which resources are mechanically significant, and the consequences (risk/reward factor) of recharging those resources when they are depleted.

If a risk factor to resting is re-introduced to the game, that would IMHO solve the problem.

We'll see.


RC


----------



## IanArgent

Imaro said:
			
		

> How is the wizard a badly designed 30%...the wizard doesn't operate at 30% capacity, use an ability at 100% capacity and then drop back to 30%.  Once again in the 3e modewl the player of the wizard decides at what rate and how much of his resources he spends in any one encounter.
> 
> In the new model it's a set rate no matter what...all of your per-encounter ansd at-will abilities will reset with every "encounter".  Your per-day ability doesn't actually change your power level except in one specific encounter.  Takes the question of how many resources you want to use in an encounter, compared to how much you need left for further encounters out of the players hands.  I'm sorry these are two different models and there isn't a corellary here.  One *you* decide through management of your resources over time.  In the other it is a standard pre-set level of efficiency for evry encounter, with what I'll call a "power boost" that only affects one encounter .



All of the wizard's "core competency" abilities are per-day right now. Every spellcaster is like that right now - there are encounters where you just don't use your spells because of metagame constraints; the encounter isn't "important enough" to justify using spells. That's one problem that is trying to be addressed by a mix of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities. It's a false decision if you say "resource management is in the hands of the player now". It is, but the player doesn't have the information required to make an informed decision. The player does not have any way of knowing (short of divination magic and/or a GM who is free with informaiton) whether the encounter they are in is "worth" blowing a limited selection of per-day abilities on.

Whereas a fighter can always make the decision to use power attack, combat expertise, or what-have-you; the decision to use those abilities is only dependent on information present _in the encounter_. The barbarian's rage, actually, is an ability that IMHO is a "good" per-day ability. It's quite powerful, but the lack of uses does not prevent the barbarian from doing his "barbarian thing". He's still a fast, offense-over-defense melee tank even after he's used his rage for the day. The paladin's Smite Evil ability would be fine, if it was able to be applied to damage AFTER the hit is confirmed.

This is a philosophical breakpoint between the two sides, I think. IMHO, an arcane character should be able to do something arcane and effective _every round_. A divine character should be able to do something divine and effective _every round_. Martial characters can _already_ do something martial and effective every round. Why can't arcane/divine/psionic characters?

And using a wand/scroll/potion _doesn't count_. Expendable magic items are just that, expendable. They don't care about resting to recharge, eventually they run out no matter how hard you work to conserve them.


----------



## gizmo33

IanArgent said:
			
		

> This is a philosophical breakpoint between the two sides, I think.




Not me.  I hope that wizards get per-encounter resources in 4E.  My issue was with removing all per-day resources from the game, and with some of the perspectives in Wyatt's blog entry that I found strange.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, does this mean that you are laying odds that I am wrong, or laying odds that I am right, or refusing to lay odds?
> 
> Because the new D&D will be fully operational in less than a year.  After a year's play (or less) I expect that same old complaint to resurface _if, as Wyatt's blog implies, the change in resource management is how the designers tackled the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem_.  I certainly agree that the problem could be tackled in other ways; just not this way.
> 
> RC




I think the change in resource management _lessens_ the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem. As long as their is still daily resource management, there is always a chance that some careful players (or players with bad experience with overtly tough encounters thrown at them) will rest after one encounter. But that will not be the norm, and the system will not enforce early rests as strong as the current one - even if there are tough encounters.

But more importantly: 
I am laying odds that you are wrong. If there are problems that your or anyone else from us detected just by looking at a few glimpses and indications of the rules, they will become obvious to the designers and developers who know all the pieces and also tested them in game, too.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I am laying odds that you are wrong. If there are problems that your or anyone else from us detected just by looking at a few glimpses and indications of the rules, they will become obvious to the designers and developers who know all the pieces and also tested them in game, too.





Well, all I can say is that I hope you are right, and that if this thread has been of any help to that end, then it will have been worth it.

I do note, however, that it was the designers and developers who knew all the pieces and also tested them in game, too, that gave us this problem in the 3.X system.  Of course, that was different designers and developers, so again, I hope you are right.

RC


----------



## Mallus

RC, you never did answer my question... so I'll ask it again.

Why do you think the reduced importance of resource management works for a d20 game like Mutants and Masterminds, but is problematic for D&D 4E?

The only thing I can come with relates to adventure design. D&D is pegged to the traditional dungeon crawl which in turn is pegged to the existing resource management scheme. Is that fair?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> RC, you never did answer my question... so I'll ask it again.
> 
> Why do you think the reduced importance of resource management works for a d20 game like Mutants and Masterminds, but is problematic for D&D 4E?
> 
> The only thing I can come with relates to adventure design.




I was waiting for JK to fork a thread on this topic.

The short form is that I feel that a game like M&M doesn't require the same type of versimilitude as a game emulating classic adventure fiction and fantasy.  Of course, if you don't want D&D to emulate classic adventure fiction and fantasy, the point quickly becomes moot.


RC


----------



## FickleGM

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I was waiting for JK to fork a thread on this topic.
> 
> The short form is that I feel that a game like M&M doesn't require the same type of versimilitude as a game emulating classic adventure fiction and fantasy.  Of course, if you don't want D&D to emulate classic adventure fiction and fantasy, the point quickly becomes moot.
> 
> 
> RC



 To me, it is simply expectations.  I don't think that it's a matter of it requiring "the same type of versimilitude as a game emulating classic adventure fiction and fantasy".  I've played classic adventure fiction and fantasy using Fudge, Risus, True20, d6, etc. and did not use the same types of resource management.

Those who play D&D expect (and in many cases, I assume, like) the types of resource management that exists in D&D.  There is bound to be some trepidation with moving off that model and onto a different model.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, all I can say is that I hope you are right, and that if this thread has been of any help to that end, then it will have been worth it.
> 
> I do note, however, that it was the designers and developers who knew all the pieces and also tested them in game, too, that gave us this problem in the 3.X system.  Of course, that was different designers and developers, so again, I hope you are right.
> 
> RC



That's true. That's why there probably will be a 5th edition. At some point, maybe in 1 year, maybe in 2 years, the weaknesses of D&D 4 that only were uncovered after a few dozens modules and adventures were played will become apparent, and people will try to fix it.

I think the 3.0 designers made a tremendous job. I just began role-playing when D&D 3rd edition hit the streets, and thus I don't know much about the transition period. The only problems I had with D&D 3rd edition were conceptual ones, like "Hitpoints? How stupid is that? What's this strange spell sys
tem? In Shadowrun, we only have 10 wounds, we have a damage modifiers, and we can cast spell as often as we like or at least until our head explodes! That's far more realistic!" But as I continued to play and I gained some "rules mastery", I didn't see these as the real problems. The problems were in the detail (3.0 Haste, Ranger's Two-Weapon Fighting and many more). And only a few years later, after I also began DMing the 3rd edtion, more fundamental issues that cropped up - where and when does the CR system fail (Shadowrun didn't have anything comparable!) and so on...


----------



## Treebore

CleverName said:
			
		

> Thanks for sharing, but I will point out your on a *10-page thread * most of these folks think that there *is a problem* with the current system and they are looking forward to more _at will_ and _per encounter_ options.
> 
> So, even with your anecdotes, it is pretty safe to say, that the majority of folks on this board disagree with you. I would even go so far as to say most of the folks who play D&D would disagree with you -- but we could argue that for another 10+ pages.
> 
> I, personally, look forward to more time at the table _adventuring_. I get to play maybe 4 hours at a stretch - giving me only 10-15 minutes back (during a long adventure) is going to be worth a lot.





I don't care if people disagree with me. All I care about is what is true for my gaming experience. BTW, you may want to look at who started this thread and has been following it ever since. Plus it is at 22 pages.

I do find it extremely interesting about the Wand of Cure Light Wounds, though. We rarely ever get such a wand in our games. Potions is what we get. Even scrolls aren't that common, because they quickly add up in cost. Don't have much gold to spare at low levels. I make heavy use of scrolls starting about 5th level.

So it is interesting to wonder if its the perception of resource management that is most important. IE if the party is stopping to rest because everyone needs to recover something sits much better than when its just to stop for the spellcasters to recover spells. So all the fighter types selfishly forget the only reason they don't need to stop is because of those spells. Because those spells either already healed them, or killed the enemy faster and prevented more successful hits, or both.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Treebore said:
			
		

> So it is interesting to wonder if its the perception of resource management that is most important. IE if the party is stopping to rest because everyone needs to recover something sits much better than when its just to stop for the spellcasters to recover spells. So all the fighter types selfishly forget the only reason they don't need to stop is because of those spells. Because those spells either already healed them, or killed the enemy faster and prevented more successful hits, or both.



That's a good observation, too. Basically, this is was creates the so called "unfun" part (and it might be egoistical or selfish...)
But there is still the thing with 30 minutes of adventuring, which isn't so much about fun but typically something that comes in the way of the adventure's general pacing (or verisimilitude)


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (1a) If a battle does not use up per-day resources, nothing is lost in engaging in that battle. This means:
> 
> (1ai) The PCs can engage in an effectively endless number of these battles.
> 
> (1aii) The only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It is basically my argument that, if you can have any number of encounters X, and at the end of those encounters you are at 80% resources, then an encounter that leaves you at 80% resources without a significant chance of loss of permanent resources falls below the mechanical threshold of significance.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The mechanical threshold of significance model has been used as the standard for D&D for what now?  Thirty years or more?  There is little doubt in my mind that it is the standard for the average D&D group.  That it will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0.........well, again, colour me skeptical.
> 
> The two factors above has caused many DMs to increase the mechanical challenges of their combats above the suggested guidelines in the DMG, making more combats be of the win/lose variety.  Again, that this will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0...............skeptical.
> 
> It is always true that you have better odds of winning a win/lose fight with more resources.  That this will suddenly cease to be so with 4.0.......skeptical.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> My conclusions are not based around the complete removal of daily resources.  AFAICT, removing all long-term resource management (while it would have other effects I would not enjoy) would solve the problem of PCs resting to recover long-term resources completely.  As long as both a benefit for resting exists, and a cost for resting does not, prudent play suggests that you rest.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> After a year's play (or less) I expect that same old complaint to resurface if, as Wyatt's blog implies, the change in resource management is how the designers tackled the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem. I certainly agree that the problem could be tackled in other ways; just not this way.



Let's look at it this way - what changes would we have to make to your premises, such that your pessimistic conclusion doesn't follow?

*We can suppose that other standards of significance are relevant to encounters besides the "mechanical threshold of significance", which you have defined to depend on resource depletion or acquisition.

*We can suppose that the _threat_ of mechanical significance (in your sense of that phrase) is present in encounters.

*We can suppose that not all players engage in prudent play (in your sense of that phrase).

It seems to me that each of my suppositions is plausible. Wyatt's more recent post confirms what other posters on this thread have indicated, namely, that powers are being designed so that the question of _which_ power to use in a given round in an encounter is a meanginful and engaging one (other features of encounter design, like the "half hit-point" trigger abilities for monsters, will probably enhance this aspect). This introduces a dimension of significance that is not related to resource depletion or acquisition.

Furthermore, this scope for meaningful tactical play means that the _threat_ of long-term resource depletion may be present in an encounter even if (in the end) no such depletion occurs (because skilled use of per-encounter abilities obviates it).

Finally, if the above two paragraphs are true, then even resource-depleted parties can go on to have interesting and enjoyable encounters without having to rest. Combine this with the oft-mentioned fact that many players do not regard prudence (in your sense) as the only consideration relevant to the question of whether or not to rest, and we can envisage a more flexible approach to play, and to encounter sequencing, emerging from per-encounter abilities.

Despite the fact that the 1st ed PHB and DMG did not identify any other metagame priorities, D&D has never been solely about operational play. This is obvious from the most cursory readings of early texts (compare Roger Musson and Lewis Pulsipher's articles in early numbers of White Dwarf, for example). It seems fairly clear that 4e is intended to remove the obstacles to these varieties of play that the current resource-management system imposes. For the reasons given above, I don't think your pessimisim about the likely success of this attempt to be warranted.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> That's the fundemental point?  The point I was responding to was "heroes fight all of the time and never rest".  Stalker0 never said what you're saying here.




There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio Gizmo, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.



> Last time in 3E that a whole bunch of days passed when nothing happens I said "a whole bunch of days pass, and nothing happens".




Which was not the salient point. Try again.



> Are you suggesting that 4 encounters per day is a minimum?




No, I am suggesting that imposing the structure of an assumed number of encounters per day is nonsensical, ludicrous, and models nothing of what is seen in literature.

Is that better?


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is true, but unless the vast majority of DMs is somehow converted to using other thresholds of significance, the fact that Hong and others benefit doesn not imply that this change will have the effect of removing the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem, as Wyatt claims.




Pish tosh. The vast majority of DMs use published adventures, so as long as the adventure writers can manage to treat modules as more than glorified ASL campaign scenarios, all will be fine.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If a risk factor to resting is re-introduced to the game, that would IMHO solve the problem.




And overturn 30 years of tradition involving tiny huts, magnificent mansions, teleports, plane shifts and rope tricks? The mind boggles. Why, next you'll be suggesting banning erinyes.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Treebore said:
			
		

> We rested because the fighters were low on HP's, which was in turn because the cleric was out of spells.




I'd like to call attention to that line.

The fighters were only out of their "Per Day" resources because the cleric was out of his.

If the cleric had more per-day healing spells available, he'd've been able to cast them on the fighters.  At that point, the fighters would be at "~100%" of daily resources, while the cleric and wizard were at "~0%" of daily resources.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> Which was not the salient point. Try again.




Does salient mean the same thing as erratic?  I guess I don't really have an opinion about how many fireballs Gandalf can cast.  How's that for trying?



			
				hong said:
			
		

> No, I am suggesting that imposing the structure of an assumed number of encounters per day is nonsensical, ludicrous, and models nothing of what is seen in literature.
> 
> Is that better?




"Little Women" isn't really within my sphere of knowledge.  I do find that the lack of substance gives your idea clarity though.  I'm tempted to ask for some examples or development.  Say, for example, an actual story and what you thought it showed about the entire field of fantasy literature and it's take on resources.  Of course such a thing itself would be literature, and there would be a risk that it was self-referencing.  Oh well.  Play on.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Imaro said:
			
		

> Let me put it this way...if you give me a choice between a character who will be at 80% or a character who will be at 30% after using their per-day abiltity, I would be stupid to pick the 30% character and creating such an imbalance is bad game design.  A per-day ability can only be used in any encounter one time, so as long as I don't use it Im effectively fighting at 30% and in the one fight where I use it I'm 100% and then 30% after that until I rest.




Did you just switch sides of this argument?

The D&D wizard reduced to crossbowing and throwing flasks of burning oil is that guy at 30% efficacy.

Then, he can use his per-day resources to be at 100% for a short period of time.  However, when he isn't using those resources, he's still operating at 30%.

Congrats on making the switch!


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Does salient mean the same thing as erratic?  I guess I don't really have an opinion about how many fireballs Gandalf can cast.  How's that for trying?




No, posting irrelevant nonsense is MY schtick. Try again.



> "Little Women" isn't really within my sphere of knowledge.




Not that anyone was stating that it was.



> I do find that the lack of substance gives your idea clarity though.  I'm tempted to ask for some examples or development.  Say, for example, an actual story and what you thought it showed about the entire field of fantasy literature and it's take on resources.




No, no. If you want to demonstrate that the 4-encounters-per-day paradigm has any relevance to what actually goes on in fantasy literature, you provide the evidence. Because I have already conspicuously failed to find such evidence, so perhaps you can do better than me.



> Of course such a thing itself would be literature, and there would be a risk that it was self-referencing.  Oh well.  Play on.




Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The short form is that I feel that a game like M&M doesn't require the same type of versimilitude as a game emulating classic adventure fiction and fantasy.




Classic adventure fiction and fantasy... like Advanced Squad Leader?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

I think I can sum up why I like the per-encounter paradigm much better than the per-day paradigm with the following [largely notional] charts.

These charts assume that you use your big guns as early as possible (hence the early spike), but that spike could just as easily be moved to later in the day.

[size=+1]*Entirely Per-Day Resources*[/size]









[size=+1]*Some Per-Day but Largely Per-Encounter*[/size]


----------



## Mallus

hong said:
			
		

> Classic adventure fiction and fantasy... like Advanced Squad Leader?



Beautiful...

Well, it's time for me to get eight hours of rest in dangerous place fraught with violence (I live in Philadelphia).


----------



## pemerton

hong said:
			
		

> Classic adventure fiction and fantasy... like Advanced Squad Leader?



Another person in agreement. This is a legitimate style of D&D play - read Lewis Pulsipher's old columns for one of the most developed expositions of this style of play - but not the only one, and not one that has much connection to the fiction I'm familiar with.

Per-encounter removes the principal mechanical feature that pushes D&D in this direction.

We know that some 1/day powers will remain. It is not clear what they will be. If Monte Cook's column is any guide, however, they may well not include straightforward attack and defence actions.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> *We can suppose that other standards of significance are relevant to encounters besides the "mechanical threshold of significance", which you have defined to depend on resource depletion or acquisition.




Could have been done under the current system.  For those who are comfortable with other thresholds of significance, this problem already doesn't exist.  Therefore it is unlikely that this is going to prevent the problem.



> *We can suppose that the _threat_ of mechanical significance (in your sense of that phrase) is present in encounters.




Win/lose encounters are already part of my analysis.  I predicted a rise in win/lose encounters beyond that which we have already seen in 3.X, to cover the exact same problem that 3.X introduced.

Win/lose encounters (in this case, those with the _threat_ of mechanical significance, where anly loss of mechanical resources is perforce a significant one) make the problem worse, not better.



> *We can suppose that not all players engage in prudent play (in your sense of that phrase).




For those who do not engage in prudent play, this problem already doesn't exist.  Therefore, this is unlikely to prevent the problem.

So, yes, if you do not have this problem now because you use other thesholds of significance or because you have players who do not engage in prudent play, 4.0 might well allow you to carry on carrying on.  If you have this problem now, per-encounter resources aren't going to solve it.

Exactly what I concluded........pages and pages ago.    


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Does salient mean the same thing as erratic?





Why are you even bothering with someone who clearly has no actual interest in the conversation, apart from threadcrapping?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I think I can sum up why I like the per-encounter paradigm much better than the per-day paradigm with the following [largely notional] charts.




Why do your chart lines slope after per-day resources are used up in the "Some Per-Day but Largely Per-Encounter" chart?  Surely at this point they will be straight lines?  Or is this supposed to indicate hit point attrition?  If so, given that the cleric and wizard have fewer hit points than the fighter, wouldn't their lines slope more than the "everyone else" line?


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why are you even bothering with someone who clearly has no actual interest in the conversation, apart from threadcrapping?



 Tch, tch, tch.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, yes, if you do not have this problem now because you use other thesholds of significance or because you have players who do not engage in prudent play, 4.0 might well allow you to carry on carrying on.  If you have this problem now, per-encounter resources aren't going to solve it.




Yes it will, because one fight per day will no longer break an explicit assumption of the combat model. Just as N fights per day will also no longer break that assumption.


----------



## Imaro

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Did you just switch sides of this argument?
> 
> The D&D wizard reduced to crossbowing and throwing flasks of burning oil is that guy at 30% efficacy.
> 
> Then, he can use his per-day resources to be at 100% for a short period of time.  However, when he isn't using those resources, he's still operating at 30%.
> 
> Congrats on making the switch!




Nice bit of non-logic there, especially where you don't put what I said in the context of the(original post) player deciding what percentage of resources he starts a per-day encouter.  If I choose not to cast any spells in the first encounter I enter the next at  100%...if I cast two 0 level spells let's sat I'm at 70% for the next encounter(this is an arbitrary number as I have not done the math work to acurately represent the exact percentage that each of a wizards spells represent, but it serves the purpose of making my point nonetheless.

Let me first note, the purpose of the original post was an argument for why the per-encounter abilities would have to keep characters at a basically similar level of power.  However, since Patryn has decided to take it totally out of context(and stiill totally screw up what it means even in that context) let me explain further...

Taking the previous post, in a per encounter model I am effectively at 30%(not 100%) all the time unless I use my per-day ability(at which point I am 100% for exactly one encounter then back to 30% for the rest of the day).  So it is again less granularity through my own decisions.  There is one major decision to make...when/what encounter will I be 100% in.  In a per-day model I can choose to be a wider(both higher than30% or lower than 30%) range of effectiveness starting and throughout.  IMHO, this allows for a wider range of "challenging" encounters, where in the above example(per-encounter) I will structure encounters for 30% and 100%.

Now I admit that the range of per-day abilities will impact this model greatly, but since we have heard the use of your per-day abilities(for the wizard) will leave one at 80% then we can infer that per-day will be about 20% of a characters overall effectiveness.  Thus, the only resource impact one can have is a difference of 20%(through making a character use their per-day abilities).  The per-encounter which make up 80% will never be lower than 80% at the beginning of any encounter, thus limiting the types of opponents(without DM fabricated factors) that one can challenge PC's(on a tactical and mechanical) level in the game to those monsters/NPC's that are a challenge for them at 70-100%.  Almost anything else will be a cakewalk(20% to 90% difference).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A fight is either one in which you will win, given even modest skill at playing, or one in which there is a clear chance to lose.



I believe there is a 3rd option that is between those two.  An encounter where given MORE than modest skill you will clearly win.

Basically, I find that my players would prefer to know that they are near invincible(like they had a 5% chance of dying each encounter).  But only because they know what they are doing and they are making the right decisions.  They know if they make the wrong decisions that they had a real chance of dying(like 50% chance).  They know that even if they were completely incompetent, there would be an average chance they'd win anyways, since they are the heroes of the story.  But, given bad luck one of them would die.  They want to avoid that, and luckily, they are given a bunch of "cool powers" that can tip the odds in their favor if they use them correctly.

Right now, an encounter that has "significance" is still, basically a 95% chance of winning given even modest skill(and say an 85% of winning with no skill at all).  The average one is easy to beat just by rolling to hit and healing the damage afterwards and casting the most basic attack spells.  The only reason it has significance at all is that it uses up resources.

Players prefer the nail biting encounters closer to the ones mentioned at the beginning, They want to know that they WOULD have lost if only they didn't use all of their cool powers.  Unfortunately, using all your cool powers generally means using up way more resources than 20%.  Therefore making them rest as soon as the nail biting encounter is done.

There is currently a HUGE difference in flavor between "I attack with my longsword for 15 damage.  I get hit for 15 damage.  He magic missiles it for 15 damage.  Oh look, it died.  Now we'll heal the damage we took." and "I fireball that group over there for 30.  They are still up?  He attacks the big guy for 20.  He's still up?  We get hit for 50.  The cleric casts his highest level cure spell for 35.  The barbarian hits the big guy for 30.  Still up?  The wizard takes 15 damage from arrows.  Next round."

The first uses up resources and is significant but isn't very much fun.  The second uses up a LOT of resources and is much more fun.  Played correctly, though, both have the same risk of death.  It's just that in the first example, you save your high level spells and use low level ones instead.

Mechanically there is almost no difference.  The damage being done to the group each round is only slightly more than they heal each round.  This means that barring bad luck, the party knows it's just a matter of a number of rounds before they win.  However, if the fighter delays rather than attacking one round or the wizard spends a round readying for something that never happens, it decreases their odds of winning a decent amount.  Everyone has to pull together to win.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Imaro said:
			
		

> Now I admit that the range of per-day abilities will impact this model greatly, but since we have heard the use of your per-day abilities(for the wizard) will leave one at 80% then we can infer that per-day will be about 20% of a characters overall effectiveness.  Thus, the only resource impact one can have is a difference of 20%(through making a character use their per-day abilities).  The per-encounter which make up 80% will never be lower than 80% at the beginning of any encounter, thus limiting the types of opponents(without DM fabricated factors) that one can challenge PC's(on a tactical and mechanical) level in the game to those monsters/NPC's that are a challenge for them at 70-100%.  Almost anything else will be a cakewalk(20% to 90% difference).




That looks reasonable. (Though note that 80% just gives us the upper limit of resources available per encounter, since the comment was only related to spells, not hit points or action points or similar things)
But I am not really thinking it is a bad thing.
Because it eliminates encounters that are just there for the "resource attrition" thing, and are to often not interesting on their own. 
A key difference is also: As long as their is any way to keep a Fighters hit points up, he will be at 100 % effectiveness all the time. This means there is a grave disparity between these classes. Which is what makes the whole thing work in the first place, I guess, but it has some further effects.
The range of encounters that can only serve for resource attrition, but not to fully exhaust the PCs is pretty slim. If the enemies are too weak, there is no need for the spellcasters to intervene - the Fighter will take care of everything, being protected by virtue of his AC and HP.
Just as an example: Fighting against 4 enemies 4 levels/CRs below the groups level means that the enemies can rarely hit the fighter and deal little damage, or that their AC and HP is so low that the melee warriors can quickly dispatch them. There is no need for spells, and a experienced group will not waste any important spell resources on this encounter. (They might not know the exact CR or EL, but guessing the real threat of your enemies can be quickly done in D&D...)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But I am not really thinking it is a bad thing.
> Because it eliminates encounters that are just there for the "resource attrition" thing, and are to often not interesting on their own.





Which is why, in the end, you have 90% win/lose fights.


----------



## Imaro

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That looks reasonable. (Though note that 80% just gives us the upper limit of resources available per encounter, since the comment was only related to spells, not hit points or action points or similar things)
> But I am not really thinking it is a bad thing.
> Because it eliminates encounters that are just there for the "resource attrition" thing, and are to often not interesting on their own.
> A key difference is also: As long as their is any way to keep a Fighters hit points up, he will be at 100 % effectiveness all the time. This means there is a grave disparity between these classes. Which is what makes the whole thing work in the first place, I guess, but it has some further effects.
> The range of encounters that can only serve for resource attrition, but not to fully exhaust the PCs is pretty slim. If the enemies are too weak, there is no need for the spellcasters to intervene - the Fighter will take care of everything, being protected by virtue of his AC and HP.
> Just as an example: Fighting against 4 enemies 4 levels/CRs below the groups level means that the enemies can rarely hit the fighter and deal little damage, or that their AC and HP is so low that the melee warriors can quickly dispatch them. There is no need for spells, and a experienced group will not waste any important spell resources on this encounter. (They might not know the exact CR or EL, but guessing the real threat of your enemies can be quickly done in D&D...)




Yes but this reasoning leads us back to the "uninteresting" encounters.  Using your above reasoning in the per-day model, even a group of four Goblins can become a "significant" encounter if enough resources are depleted and they are encountered later in the adventure.  In the per-encounter model, at a certain point, anything that doesn't challenge the players to use between 70% to 100% of their resources is now a boring encounter(exceopt for the badassitude of killing mooks, which can again be done in the per-day model). Instead of encounters that serve as resource attrition, you now have a range of encounters that serve as litlle more than scenery and will quickly be dispatched by the party(just like your example above).

If every encounter is a 70 to 100 percenter then the actual risk of TPK or death rises exponentially as there is a greater liklihood of dying in these encounters.  Thus the win or die encounter either becomes the norm(with high rates of party death) or a rarely invoked fight just as in the per-day encounter.  In other words the factors for limiting the "interesting" fights aren't solved...the reasoning for it has just been changed.

My suggestion is that per-day abilities be structured for all characters to last throughout the day(but allow for attrition in smaller increments until a total day of rest is achieved).  Since the spellcastrers are the main culprits of this...I would suggest a spellcraft roll system with fatigue that increases the DC to cast a spell(each spell has it's own DC to cast).  This model allows them to keep casting(low spells often/higher less often) with the risk that a particular spell will fail and that at a certain point fatigue will cause them to have to make very high rolls in order to keep going.  You then take this model and do the math so that it actually lasts in the 4 to 5 hours of play range(or whatever is the average for a group of players) and make fatigue grow so that after this point it really starts to take it's toll.  Allow spellcasters to heal small amounts of fatigue in the every 10 min range(so there is the real chance the PC's might be discovered or attacked for that small boost but not have to stop for a whole day).  Thus you've covered the average playing time of a group and have allowed them to keep going but at the risk(instead of certainty) that they're spells become less and less dependable.  It keeps the flavor of magic as an unknown and that it must be used responsibly, but allows wizards to keep going if they're willing to risk something for it.

It's a litlle rough, but I'm getting ready for work and it's kind of off the cuff.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why are you even bothering with someone who clearly has no actual interest in the conversation, apart from threadcrapping?




You and Imaro seem to be holding down the fort pretty well on the interesting parts of this thread.  Someone teleported in and made some generalization about movies/books and then teleported out.  Hong started off as wanting to explain this, then it degenerated into him listing synonyms for "absurd".  He feels that it's the sort of thing people mean when they say 'reasoning', and I didn't think there was any harm to let him play around with it.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> You and Imaro seem to be holding down the fort pretty well on the interesting parts of this thread.  Someone teleported in and made some generalization about movies/books and then teleported out.  Hong started off as wanting to explain this, then it degenerated into him listing synonyms for "absurd".  He feels that it's the sort of thing people mean when they say 'reasoning', and I didn't think there was any harm to let him play around with it.



 ... which reminds me, I'm still waiting for evidence of the 4-encounters-per-day paradigm in fantasy literature.


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> If every encounter is a 70 to 100 percenter then the actual risk of TPK or death rises exponentially as there is a greater liklihood of dying in these encounters.




Not necessarily.


----------



## Imaro

hong said:
			
		

> Not necessarily.




Remeber healing/hit points are a resource...so yeah, necessarily.


----------



## Baby Samurai

hong said:
			
		

> ... which reminds me, I'm still waiting for evidence of the 4-encounters-per-day paradigm in fantasy literature.





Exactly, thank god that arbitrary malarkey is being ditched.

I'm sure 4th edition will support 1 _or_ 10 encounters in a day as the story/adventure demands.


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yes but this reasoning leads us back to the "uninteresting" encounters.  Using your above reasoning in the per-day model, even a group of four Goblins can become a "significant" encounter if enough resources are depleted and they are encountered later in the adventure.




But to get to that point, you still have to fight lots of groups of 4 goblins. So there are still boring fights. You cannot get away from the boring fights, unless every fight is with a BBEG.


----------



## Wormwood

Baby Samurai said:
			
		

> Exactly, thank god that arbitrary malarkey is being ditched.
> 
> I'm sure 4th edition will support 1 _or_ 10 encounters in a day as the story/adventure demands.




I''m not *sure*, but I'm sure as hell *hoping* so.


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> Remeber healing/hit points are a resource...so yeah, necessarily.



 No. See previous post.

And no, I do not consider "reduce variance" to equal "boring". Play enough mid- to high-level D&D and you'll quickly find that the prevalence of instakills and massive-damage brutes means there's more than enough variance for anyone.


----------



## Imaro

hong said:
			
		

> But to get to that point, you still have to fight lots of groups of 4 goblins. So there are still boring fights. You cannot get away from the boring fights, unless every fight is with a BBEG.




So you agree it doesn't solve the problem?  Now read my example of a fix, where there is always risk yet the more encounters is supported and long term strategy is supported as well.


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:
			
		

> Remeber healing/hit points are a resource...so yeah, necessarily.



So are Action/Hero Points... or at least they are in AE, M&M, and a host of other games, including 4E... Not to mention whatever other mechanics might exist to support a different encounter frequency model.

Imaro, I've run my game on the 'one or two encounters per _session_' paradigm for the three year length of my campaign,without any trouble, outside of the nasty things it does to inter-party balance (which we address by agreement and fiat). 

But that doesn't mean I not looking forward to rules that more closely support my prefered style of play.


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> So you agree it doesn't solve the problem?  Now read my example of a fix, where there is always risk yet the more encounters is supported and long term strategy is supported as well.



 Spell failure rolls would seem to go against the accepted practice in D&D. Still, they've killed enough sacred cows already so what's one more. In addition to that, though, I've actually used systems where you track resource depletion/refreshing over time, and I don't really see it as worth the effort. In a vid*ogame it works, but I don't like going to the effort of being a timekeeper as well as DM.

One idea I had was after every fight, you make a save or check of some sort, to see how much of your per-day resources you get back. If you roll well enough, and didn't expend too much, you might be back to full. Otherwise, you're at reduced strength for the rest of the day. This was with reference to hit points, but it could be extended to spells. Might be cumbersome with a spell slot system, though.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> ... which reminds me, I'm still waiting for evidence of the 4-encounters-per-day paradigm in fantasy literature.




There are no game paradigms in fantasy literature - unless, possibly, it's a book based on a game.  An author makes up some stuff and writes it down as having happened.  As closely as this matches some people's apparent gaming style, I otherwise don't see the relevance to this discussion about game mechanics.  

Someone said that "heroes could fight all day without resting" in literature and movies.  I asked for an example, or at least some kind of development of the argument - mostly so I could just hear the crickets chirping.  Instead of crickets I got some of your non-sequiturs and synonym finding exercises.  So I guess you should stop waiting, somewhere out there is a thread in need of some of your three-word enlightenment.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> There are no game paradigms in fantasy literature - unless, possibly, it's a book based on a game.  An author makes up some stuff and writes it down as having happened.  As closely as this matches some people's apparent gaming style, I otherwise don't see the relevance to this discussion about game mechanics.




So... your answer to the statement that 4-encounters-per-day doesn't model anything, is that it isn't supposed to model anything. Which is fair enough, I guess, if you ignore the elephant you just brought into the room.



> Someone said that "heroes could fight all day without resting" in literature and movies.




Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Battle of Helm's Deep. Or is an 8-hour fight not long enough?


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:
			
		

> So are Action/Hero Points... or at least they are in AE, M&M, and a host of other games, including 4E... Not to mention whatever other mechanics might exist to support a different encounter frequency model.




Yes, since they tie into the effectiveness of a character.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Imaro, I've run my game on the 'one or two encounters per _session_' paradigm for the three year length of my campaign,without any trouble, outside of the nasty things it does to inter-party balance (which we address by agreement and fiat).
> 
> But that doesn't mean I not looking forward to rules that more closely support my prefered style of play.




I have purchased and played SW saga ed. and I was just exspressing concerns which I ran into in that game as Iplayed it more.  No it was not apparent in a read of the game, but in actual play I ran into this.  Why is everyone taking this as bashinmg on 4e...on the one hand we have designer blogs where they want you to comment on your play, because it will supposedly still help them in their game design, yet any questioning or issues of what they have stated is looked at as "bashing".  I rather see me and RC posting about issues we actually hope they take into account, yet when people jump in the thread claiming the problem or issue itself is wrong then you are put in a position where you have to explain it in more and more detail.  Did I ever say 4e will do this...no.  What I am hoping is 4e will see this and address a possible problem with a solution

I'm sorry I'm not one of the people who figure the designer's are perfect and have thought of everything(because all rpg's are perfect...right?) but I felt this issue was important enough to bring up and discuss.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imaro said:
			
		

> on the one hand we have designer blogs where they want you to comment on your play, because it will supposedly still help them in their game design, yet any questioning or issues of what they have stated is looked at as "bashing".  I rather see me and RC posting about issues we actually hope they take into account





Quoted For Truth.

If we just shut up, and then 4e comes out _without_ taking these issues into account, we have only ourselves to blame.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Quoted For Truth.
> 
> If we just shut up, and then 4e comes out _without_ taking these issues into account, we have only ourselves to blame.



 Well, I suppose it makes a change from "won't people think of the children!"


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> So... your answer to the statement that 4-encounters-per-day doesn't model anything, is that it isn't supposed to model anything. Which is fair enough, I guess, if you ignore the elephant you just brought into the room.




I don't understand what you're saying here.  "4-encounters-per-day" is an oversimplification - and a misleading one I think in this context.  There's no real limit to the number of encounters a party can face in DnD.  The limit is the resources they have to devote to the encounter.  A more complete statement of the above is "an average of 4 encounters per day where those encounters are of an EL equal to APL".  When it really comes down to is that PCs have a limited amount of energy in that paradigm.  

In any case, it's not even a strict limit of 4 when you confine it to only encounters of the specified EL.  So AFAICT you're not objecting to a strict limit, you're objecting to the fact that there is an average result that stems from PCs having a limited amount of resources.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Battle of Helm's Deep. Or is an 8-hour fight not long enough?




By *fight* I was thinking actual fighting.  Standing around in an army of 10,000 watching other people fight isn't what I thought you meant - mainly because it doesn't really deal with any issues of resource usage.  Gimli and Legolas had some sort of contest about how many orcs they could kill.  Did they get into the 20's?  That would be about 3 orcs per hour based on what you're saying here - which is pretty casual by DnD standards.  

Also, I don't know what Gimli or Legolas' levels are, but the relative weakness of orcs compared to them makes it very likely that 20-some orcs are well within their APL.  The joking attitude that the "contest" between the elf and dwarf expresses would be indicative of a series of encounters far below the APL of the pair.  (edit:  granted, this is all based on my opinion of the closest correlation between what the book describes and what the equivalent experience would be in DnD)

I don't really recall the details of these two battles well enough - maybe they are better examples than I realize, but the above is my first impression based on my hazy recollection of the details.


----------



## D.Shaffer

Imaro said:
			
		

> How is the wizard a badly designed 30%...the wizard doesn't operate at 30% capacity, use an ability at 100% capacity and then drop back to 30%.  Once again in the 3e modewl the player of the wizard decides at what rate and how much of his resources he spends in any one encounter .



I suspect we're talking about two different things here.  I'm not (directly) talking about resource management at all here.  

The 3rd ed wizard has a certain amount of per day abilities.
The 3rd ed bard has a certain amount of per day abilities.
The 3rd ed fighter has NO per day abilities (Barring certain feats)

Now, when a 3rd ed wizard uses all his per day abilities, he is at a lower effectiveness level then the 3rd ed bard. The Fighter is also still considered balanced, even though it has NO per day abilities. Why are these classes considered balanced? Because the per day abilities are not the only abilities they have, and the actual power of those other abilities varies. A wizards per day abilities give him a surge of power that (in theory) matches up with the fighters constant attacks (his per round abilities).  Again, nothing that wizards has said contradicts them continuing this pattern in 4th.  If they can maintain a balance with a diverse list of per day and per round abilities in 3rd, why would it suddenly be unbalanced if they did the same in 4th?  This is why automatically assuming the 'power percentage' for all classes based on one class is, IMO, a false assumption.



> My suggestion is that per-day abilities be structured for all characters to last throughout the day ...*snip*... You then take this model and do the math so that it actually lasts in the 4 to 5 hours of play range(or whatever is the average for a group of players) and make fatigue grow so that after this point it really starts to take it's toll. Allow spellcasters to heal small amounts of fatigue in the every 10 min range(so there is the real chance the PC's might be discovered or attacked for that small boost but not have to stop for a whole day).



What I find interesting in this is that you're essentially converting Per Day abilities into Per Encounter abilities, but you're adding a resource to keep track of while doing so.  Which suggests to me your problem isnt exactly with per encounter abilities per se.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't understand what you're saying here.  "4-encounters-per-day" is an oversimplification - and a misleading one I think in this context.




Just because YOU don't like it doesn't make it misleading.



> There's no real limit to the number of encounters a party can face in DnD.  The limit is the resources they have to devote to the encounter.  A more complete statement of the above is "an average of 4 encounters per day where those encounters are of an EL equal to APL".  When it really comes down to is that PCs have a limited amount of energy in that paradigm.




To put it into more syllables. I'm still waiting for evidence of resource attrition over the course of a day, refreshed at the end of that day, as a paradigm in fantasy literature.



> In any case, it's not even a strict limit of 4 when you confine it to only encounters of the specified EL.  So AFAICT you're not objecting to a strict limit, you're objecting to the fact that there is an average result that stems from PCs having a limited amount of resources.




There is an average result that may or may not conform to any particular adventure's requirements (in a game), or to the storyline in any particular work of literature (in a book or movie). Saying that the average is about right is useless, about as useless as saying that because your feet are in an ice bucket and your head is in an oven, then your average temperature is just right.



> By *fight* I was thinking actual fighting.  Standing around in an army of 10,000 watching other people fight isn't what I thought you meant - mainly because it doesn't really deal with any issues of resource usage.




There are two sides who want to kill each other. That constitutes a "fight" by most definitions that I've seen. Just because it doesn't conform to your narrow view based solely on resource depletion issues (which you've just admitted is completely artificial) doesn't mean anything.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> Just because YOU don't like it doesn't make it misleading.




That would be true but that's not why I'm saying it.  Saying that DnD forces you to fight 4 encounters per day is not true.  It's a mis-statement of a more detailed statement that explains a concept about resources and average results.  And the mis-statement/shorthand wouldn't be such a big deal but it's often used to make a statment that makes the 3E system sound like it's doing something that it shouldn't, which happens to be part of the motivation for this sub-thread.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> That would be true but that's not why I'm saying it.  Saying that DnD forces you to fight 4 encounters per day is not true.  It's a mis-statement of a more detailed statement that explains a concept about resources and average results.




To put it into more syllables. It is a system that is designed under the assumption of a certain number of encounters per day, such that if that assumption is violated, then there will be consequences for balance in the way that the different classes are affected.

Yes, you can always run 100 fights per day under 3E. This does not mean the system is balanced with that result in mind. Similarly, you can have one massive fight per day. Again, this does not mean the system is balanced with that result in mind. Some classes overshadow the others, with the specifics depending on how many fights occur.

... of course, you could just say "4 encounters per day" and be done with it, but apparently more syllables are always better.



> And the mis-statement/shorthand wouldn't be such a big deal but it's often used to make a statment that makes the 3E system sound like it's doing something that it shouldn't, which happens to be part of the motivation for this sub-thread.




Why, I am merely exaggerating to make a point. Surely you can't be complaining about that.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> To put it into more syllables. I'm still waiting for evidence of resource attrition over the course of a day, refreshed at the end of that day, as a paradigm in fantasy literature.




Any story where someone gets tired.  Here's a famous example (from the "Battle of Maldon, an Old English epic"):  

"Our hearts must grow resolute, our courage more valiant, our spirits must be greater, though our strength grows less."

(DnD translation:  man, I hope we win this fight before our resources run out)  These examples are pretty easy to find because the peculiarities of DnD healing magic are not present in literature as a general rule.  Plus the reality of the fact that you get tired when you are hurt or exert yourself for a long time is one understood by most authors.)

On ths subject of magic - Vance's magic system is an obvious example of resource depletion.  



			
				hong said:
			
		

> There is an average result that may or may not conform to any particular adventure's requirements (in a game), or to the storyline in any particular work of literature (in a book or movie). Saying that the average is about right is useless, about as useless as saying that because your feet are in an ice bucket and your head is in an oven, then your average temperature is just right.




I don't understand how the analogy applies to the situation.  The analogy is describing that there are various kinds of "measures of central tendency" and that "average" is not always the most informative if it is the result of extremes.  That would suggest that you think the CR system produces extremes in results as a matter of course, but I can't tell.

If the DM wants to write an adventurer with 1st level PCs going to kill Thor, then you're going to argue that the system is flawed because it imposes a "restriction" on the DMs creativity in this area?  The question is:  where are you going to draw the line in terms of a PCs endurance.  Sure - it allows for the party to do more if they never have to deal with restrictions in what it is that they can do.  



			
				hong said:
			
		

> There are two sides who want to kill each other. That constitutes a "fight" by most definitions that I've seen. Just because it doesn't conform to your narrow view based solely on resource depletion issues (which you've just admitted is completely artificial) doesn't mean anything.




My "narrow view" happens to be one that confines itself to the issue at hand IMO.  Maybe Gimli was "fighting" to keep himself from laughing at the idea that he was going to spend all day killing orcs.  That use of the word "fight" is not what I was thinking we were talking about.


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Any story where someone gets tired.




_The Gods of Mars_ by Edgar Rice Burroughs:

After several running fights from chapters 1-4, at the end of Chapter 4:

By this time I was so thoroughly fagged out that I could go no further, so I threw myself upon the floor, bidding Tars Tarkas to do likewise, and cautioning two of the released prisoners to keep careful watch.

In an instant I was asleep.​
Chapter 5 opens:

How long I slept upon the floor of the storeroom I do not know, but it must have been many hours.

I was awakened with a start by cries of alarm......​
and later

I was refreshed from my sleep, but still weak from loss of blood.  My wounds were painful.  No medicinal aid seemed possible.  How I longed for the almost miraculous healing power of the strange salves and lotions of the green Martian women.  In an hour they would have had me as new.​


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Any story where someone gets tired.




Contrary to popular belief, hit points are not the sum total of resources. Not to mention that hit points are a specific resource that will not refresh per encounter in 4E.



> (DnD translation:  man, I hope we win this fight before our resources run out)  These examples are pretty easy to find because the peculiarities of DnD healing magic are not present in literature as a general rule.  Plus the reality of the fact that you get tired when you are hurt or exert yourself for a long time is one understood by most authors.)




To be precise, you get tired to an arbitrary degree based on being hurt to another arbitrary degree, based on the author's judgement of when it is appropriate for it to happen. Said judgement may or may not correspond to the hard limit imposed by a 4-encounters-per-day paradigm, even adjusted for easier or harder fights than normal.



> On ths subject of magic - Vance's magic system is an obvious example of resource depletion.




50% of D&D gamers have never heard of Vance. 75% of non-D&D gamers out there have never heard of Vance. 90% of non-gamers out there have never heard of Vance. The only reason Vance has the profile he does is because of D&D, so pointing to him is effectively an admission that D&D only models itself.



> I don't understand how the analogy applies to the situation.




This seems to happen a lot.



> The analogy is describing that there are various kinds of "measures of central tendency" and that "average" is not always the most informative if it is the result of extremes.  That would suggest that you think the CR system produces extremes in results as a matter of course, but I can't tell.




Say what?



> If the DM wants to write an adventurer with 1st level PCs going to kill Thor, then you're going to argue that the system is flawed because it imposes a "restriction" on the DMs creativity in this area?  The question is:  where are you going to draw the line in terms of a PCs endurance.




Wherever the DM or adventure writer wants to.

"After slaying the company of orcs, you can see no other enemies around. Your band of heroes camps for the night."

"After the sixth guard post is destroyed, your group can see the exit from the cave. You leave and camp for the night."

"You've killed the lich and taken his stuff. You're feeling rather tired, so you camp for the night."

Simple, isn't it?



> Sure - it allows for the party to do more if they never have to deal with restrictions in what it is that they can do.




Artificial restrictions that, more often than not, have nothing to do with the source material, and furthermore distort the functionality of the ruleset in other ways.

Or, with fewer syllables: and this is a bad thing, why?



> My "narrow view" happens to be one that confines itself to the issue at hand IMO.  Maybe Gimli was "fighting" to keep himself from laughing at the idea that he was going to spend all day killing orcs.  That use of the word "fight" is not what I was thinking we were talking about.




And he had to conserve precious daily resources... where?


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> _The Gods of Mars_ by Edgar Rice Burroughs:
> 
> After several running fights from chapters 1-4, at the end of Chapter 4:
> 
> By this time I was so thoroughly fagged out that I could go no further, so I threw myself upon the floor, bidding Tars Tarkas to do likewise, and cautioning two of the released prisoners to keep careful watch.
> 
> In an instant I was asleep.​




Gotta conserve that bat guano, you know.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I was waiting for JK to fork a thread on this topic.
> 
> The short form is that I feel that a game like M&M doesn't require the same type of versimilitude as a game emulating classic adventure fiction and fantasy.  Of course, if you don't want D&D to emulate classic adventure fiction and fantasy, the point quickly becomes moot.
> 
> 
> RC



I did create the promised thread.


----------



## helium3

Imaro said:
			
		

> I have purchased and played SW saga ed. and I was just exspressing concerns which I ran into in that game as Iplayed it more.  No it was not apparent in a read of the game, but in actual play I ran into this.




It's a long thread and I've got limited time. Could you please clarify what it was that you ran into when you played SW Saga? It sounds like it had something to do with resource management and how it affected player choices? And no, I'm not being snarky.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> Contrary to popular belief, hit points are not the sum total of resources. Not to mention that hit points are a specific resource that will not refresh per encounter in 4E.




There are no hitpoints in novels.  I just said tired because there is a correlation between the tired concept in novels and the hitpoints concept in DnD.  The example that RC gives from the Mars books IMO is a pretty good example of what DnD means by the concept of hitpoints.

Remember, this conversation started with a claim by a poster that blinked in and said that heroes being able to fight all day without rest or consideration for resources was common in novels and movies.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> To be precise, you get tired to an arbitrary degree based on being hurt to another arbitrary degree, based on the author's judgement of when it is appropriate for it to happen. Said judgement may or may not correspond to the hard limit imposed by a 4-encounters-per-day paradigm, even adjusted for easier or harder fights than normal.




This is an example of why I said that the "4 encounters per day" thing was misleading.  In order to translate that into novel/movie terms, you'd have to know something about the APL and CRs you're dealing with.  In the one example we talked about, I could suggest rough values for Gimli vs. the orcs.  But as far as finding exactly 4 per day - first of all that doesn't happen in DnD because of the variables.  Secondly, it would be hard to seek it out in a novel because of the uncertainty of translation between the two systems.  

But that uncertainty also makes it possible that the number of orcs that Gimli and Legolas killed during a battle was *exactly* equal to 4 encounters of APL=EL.  And it wouldn't have to anyway because the 4 encounters thing does not take into account APL <> EL or how lucky your dice rolls are.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> 50% of D&D gamers have never heard of Vance. 75% of non-D&D gamers out there have never heard of Vance. 90% of non-gamers out there have never heard of Vance. The only reason Vance has the profile he does is because of D&D, so pointing to him is effectively an admission that D&D only models itself.




It's sufficient to show existence - the example was not chosen for popularity.  

On the subject of popularity:  We've analyzed the subject of "magic in novels" before.  There are relatively few instances where stories attempt to present the "magic system" of their world in any degree of detail that would be suitable for a roleplaying game.  Remember, the magic system is something that players have to understand well enough to make meaningful decisions in.  Or, at least IMO, you can't have a magic system that runs off of DM fiat.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> "After slaying the company of orcs, you can see no other enemies around. Your band of heroes camps for the night."
> 
> "After the sixth guard post is destroyed, your group can see the exit from the cave. You leave and camp for the night."
> 
> "You've killed the lich and taken his stuff. You're feeling rather tired, so you camp for the night."
> 
> Simple, isn't it?




Yea, this is a story teller style.  I don't run my games this way.  My players are the ones that decide what they do.  My job is to come up with reasonable consequences.  "You feel tired." is not something I say without some basis in the rules.  In all of your examples the DM is forcing important strategic choices on to the players (which may be an acceptable part of that gaming style).



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Artificial restrictions that, more often than not, have nothing to do with the source material, and furthermore distort the functionality of the ruleset in other ways.




What source material?  Helm's Deep?  I don't know what "distort the functionality of the ruleset" means.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Or, with fewer syllables: and this is a bad thing, why?




The "answer of few syllables" to this is "read 90% of the posts by me, RC, and Imaro".  I think it comes down to the intersection of our preferred gaming style and other things.  In my case, I just don't see my "source material" (like the Battle of Maldon or even Helm's Deep) justifying the "all per-encounter resources" model.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> And he had to conserve precious daily resources... where?




The novels aren't going to use game terminology so it's a matter of imprecise translation.  In any case, I was starting off answering a rather hyperbolic attack of "ludicrous" to my burden of explanation wasn't that high.  If you want me to now make the case that there is an interpretation of a bulk of fantasy literature that *mandates* a resource system like the one that 3E uses, that's tougher.

In this particular case, the fact that Gimli is dealing with daily resources is implicit in the decisions being made.  It's implicit in the fact that the army at Helm's Deep doesn't simply march on to Gondor two minutes after their fight ends.  Resource management is not typically of interest to readers of a fantasy narrative, but I think it's existence is implied by the way the character's act.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> Gotta conserve that bat guano, you know.




The example is sufficient to show a case in literature where the limitations of the heroes ability to continue with an adventure are coming in to play.  Here the hero is clearly going to have to rest, even though his "player" might prefer to carry on with adventure, killing Darth Vader, Sauron, and Thulsa Doom before breaking for lunch (then again food is one of those annoying resource details that 4E could probably dispense with).


----------



## Raven Crowking

hong said:
			
		

> Gotta conserve that bat guano, you know.




How I wish you felt that were true....


----------



## IanArgent

The change is being made so that _all classes_ are going to have a _mix_ of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities. Thsi is being done so that playing a wizard is going to allow you to do something "wizardly" in every combat. That's what I out of the new rules, and it sounds like something we will be getting.

I'm firmly convinced from my own experience that limited resource management is not at all required to run fun games, incidentally.


----------



## gizmo33

IanArgent said:
			
		

> The change is being made so that _all classes_ are going to have a _mix_ of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities.




My statements were less about what is actually going to be in 4E than what the effects of the various possibilities would be.  I don't have much to dispute about what I've seen 4E's rules are going to be - it matches what you're saying above and I think it will make a good game.  I wasn't so happy about what I was seeing from Wyatt in terms of design goals and justification for the change, but subsequent comments by him, combined with some more specifics on the design itself, has pretty much convinced me that I have little to worry about.



			
				IanArgent said:
			
		

> I'm firmly convinced from my own experience that limited resource management is not at all required to run fun games, incidentally.




Dragons aren't required either.  The question (not relevant to actual 4E, as you point out) might be whether or not any purpose is really served by removing a dimension of the game.  Some folks feel that the resource management issue actually gets in the way of other aspects of the game that they enjoy.  Some don't.  I think this is basically what the debate has revolved around.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How I wish you felt that were true....




IMO his recent posts have been relatively cogent and non-argumentative, more of a "miniature platinum sword" spell component.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

hong said:
			
		

> Wherever the DM or adventure writer wants to.
> 
> "After slaying the company of orcs, you can see no other enemies around. Your band of heroes camps for the night."
> 
> "After the sixth guard post is destroyed, your group can see the exit from the cave. You leave and camp for the night."
> 
> "You've killed the lich and taken his stuff. You're feeling rather tired, so you camp for the night."
> 
> Simple, isn't it?



Yeah, this is pretty much my point.  In the current system, when the PCs rest is determined by when they run low on resources.

In most literature when the heroes rest is based on when it is appropriate for the story.  Sure, there's all sorts of reasons for it: "We are tired and need to rest now", "I'm hungry and we need to stop and look for some shelter before it becomes dark", "My backpack broke and I need to sew it up so that I can continue, we might as well stop here for the night", "After many long battles we finally managed to beat the Lich King and stop his evil plot, we can finally rest", "This is the last safe haven before a 12 hour trek filled with danger through those mountains.  Let's stop and get a chance to eat and regain our strength before we attempt it."

However, I've never seen anyone use the excuse "We're out of fireballs for the day" or "I can't use healing magic again until tomorrow" as excuses.  It's normally some variation on "We're tired".  Which, of course, only happens when it is dramatically appropriate.  Being heroes, it is assumed that should it be necessary they could fight 20 battles in a day and just barely survive them.  However, they don't NEED to fight 20 battles in this day and they are tired, so they rest.  There are any number of heroic stories that show that despite being injured and tired that the heroes pushed on against impossible odds and succeeded because they HAD to, people were counting on them.  That's what makes them heroes.

I see this type of play modeled well with a per encounter system.  Players rest when there is a break in the action rather than when the numbers on their character sheet run low.


----------



## gizmo33

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It's normally some variation on "We're tired".  Which, of course, only happens when it is dramatically appropriate.




*Everything* in a novel happens when it's dramatically appropriate though, doesn't it?  Even a rather mundane description of someone getting ready for work has the purpose of establishing the tone of the story.  A novel is fundamentally a contrived set of events, a game can be something fundamentally different (or not).  What you describe is a different gaming style, one oriented to story telling.  Versimilitude will always interfere with the story at various times - the critical hit rule could very well fell a PC at a moment otherwise unsuited to the narrative.  There's nothing wrong with that as long as the expectations are made explicit.  Though I'm not sure why, according to your expressed priorities, you would bother to use dice at all to resolve events since they would potentially interfere with the story if the numbers were too wacky.  I suppose if the dice were used to choose an event from a list of "story-appropriate" events, then that would work.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Could have been done under the current system.  For those who are comfortable with other thresholds of significance, this problem already doesn't exist.  Therefore it is unlikely that this is going to prevent the problem.
> 
> For those who do not engage in prudent play, this problem already doesn't exist.  Therefore, this is unlikely to prevent the problem.
> 
> So, yes, if you do not have this problem now because you use other thesholds of significance or because you have players who do not engage in prudent play, 4.0 might well allow you to carry on carrying on.  If you have this problem now, per-encounter resources aren't going to solve it.



Is there are reason you are not considering the possibility that per-day may be an _obstacle_ to play which relies on other thresholds of significance, or which is not prudent, and that per-encounter might eliminate this obstacle?



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Some folks feel that the resource management issue actually gets in the way of other aspects of the game that they enjoy.  Some don't.  I think this is basically what the debate has revolved around.



I will quibble with your choice of verb ("feel"). It has, I believe, been _demonstrated_ that per-encounter _removes_ certain obstacles to non-operational styles of play. You agreed in an earlier post that this was not an absurd design goal. Whether or not it is a desirable one depends on one's desired play style. I have already noted that 4e, like 3E before it, is moving away from support for the 1st ed approach to play.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Yeah, this is pretty much my point.  In the current system, when the PCs rest is determined by when they run low on resources.
> 
> In most literature when the heroes rest is based on when it is appropriate for the story.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I see this type of play modeled well with a per encounter system.  Players rest when there is a break in the action rather than when the numbers on their character sheet run low.



Agreed.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Versimilitude will always interfere with the story at various times - the critical hit rule could very well fell a PC at a moment otherwise unsuited to the narrative.  There's nothing wrong with that as long as the expectations are made explicit.  Though I'm not sure why, according to your expressed priorities, you would bother to use dice at all to resolve events since they would potentially interfere with the story if the numbers were too wacky.  I suppose if the dice were used to choose an event from a list of "story-appropriate" events, then that would work.



That's actually really funny if you knew me.  Someone once suggested a diceless system and I couldn't even fathom playing like that.  Dice are important to me and you'll take them away from me when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

I try to avoid detailed narratives for the exact reason you state.  I learned my lesson when I tried making on PC a "chosen one" who I needed to stick around for the whole plot of the game from beginning to end to make work and realized I had to find ways to bring him back to life over and over again and to have enemies purposefully avoid HIM with their attacks to avoid killing him again.

I prefer dealing with plots at a macro level.  The plot is "The evil wizard is kidnapping people and transforming them into an army of monsters.  The PCs are asked to investigate the disappearances.  The wizard is going to perform a ritual in 2 days to transform them all.  The PCs must stop him.  When the PCs stop him, one of the prisoners tells them that the wizard mentioned an ally in another country who was working with him.  That will lead into the next adventure."  That plot works no matter how many PCs die, no matter what characters everyone in the group plays.  If one character dies, I can just have another one show up (amazingly enough) shortly after to replace him.

Having the risk of death adds tension and believability to the game, but it doesn't cause the game to come to a grinding halt.  The character can either be replaced almost right away or brought back to life with a spell an hour later.  A TPK will cause the game to basically end.  The PCs failing to stop the wizard in time will cause the next adventure to be derailed and I'll have to replan out the game.  It also has the disadvantage of making the players feel unheroic.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Win/lose encounters (in this case, those with the _threat_ of mechanical significance, where anly loss of mechanical resources is perforce a significant one) make the problem worse, not better.



Could you elaborate?

It seems to me that we may be using "threat" in different senses. What I had in mind was an encounter in which, during any given round, the players are not confident that the use of per-day resource will not be required to succeed at the encounter - but which, through effective tactical play, ends up being won without the use of such resources.

Such an encounter would be interesting without altering the balance of resources. It is therefore a counter-example to your assertion that encounters which do not either deplete or add to resources are uninteresting.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Basically, I find that my players would prefer to know that they are near invincible(like they had a 5% chance of dying each encounter).  But only because they know what they are doing and they are making the right decisions.  They know if they make the wrong decisions that they had a real chance of dying(like 50% chance).



This is precisely the sort of thing I have in mind by a "threat of mechanical significance".


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> There are no hitpoints in novels.




And this is relevant because...?



> I just said tired because there is a correlation between the tired concept in novels and the hitpoints concept in DnD.  The example that RC gives from the Mars books IMO is a pretty good example of what DnD means by the concept of hitpoints.




Contrary to popular belief, hit points are not the sum total of resources.



> Remember, this conversation started with a claim by a poster that blinked in and said that heroes being able to fight all day without rest or consideration for resources was common in novels and movies.




And it is. The fact that there are OTHER novels and movies that make a point of showing people getting tired doesn't change that.



> This is an example of why I said that the "4 encounters per day" thing was misleading.  In order to translate that into novel/movie terms, you'd have to know something about the APL and CRs you're dealing with.  In the one example we talked about, I could suggest rough values for Gimli vs. the orcs.  But as far as finding exactly 4 per day - first of all that doesn't happen in DnD because of the variables.  Secondly, it would be hard to seek it out in a novel because of the uncertainty of translation between the two systems.




Exactly. So why have a formula in the first place?



> But that uncertainty also makes it possible that the number of orcs that Gimli and Legolas killed during a battle was *exactly* equal to 4 encounters of APL=EL.




Everything is possible. Some things are more probable than others. Trust me, I'm a statistician.




> It's sufficient to show existence - the example was not chosen for popularity.




Relevance might also be useful. For all practical purposes, Vance is irrelevant except when it comes to D&D, so pointing to him is equivalent to saying that D&D models itself.



> On the subject of popularity:  We've analyzed the subject of "magic in novels" before.  There are relatively few instances where stories attempt to present the "magic system" of their world in any degree of detail that would be suitable for a roleplaying game.




IOW, you admit that 4-encounters-per-day models nothing except itself.



> Remember, the magic system is something that players have to understand well enough to make meaningful decisions in.  Or, at least IMO, you can't have a magic system that runs off of DM fiat.




And this is relevant to 4-encounters-per-day because...?




> In all of your examples the DM is forcing important strategic choices on to the players (which may be an acceptable part of that gaming style).




Nonsense. If per-day balancing becomes unnecessary or of lesser importance, then the DM is forcing a minor flavour choice on the players.



> What source material?  Helm's Deep?  I don't know what "distort the functionality of the ruleset" means.




Yes, I've noticed. Game balance, you know the concept, yes?



> The novels aren't going to use game terminology so it's a matter of imprecise translation.  In any case, I was starting off answering a rather hyperbolic attack of "ludicrous" to my burden of explanation wasn't that high.  If you want me to now make the case that there is an interpretation of a bulk of fantasy literature that *mandates* a resource system like the one that 3E uses, that's tougher.




Exactly.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The example is sufficient to show a case in literature where the limitations of the heroes ability to continue with an adventure are coming in to play.




The example says nothing of the substantive issue under discussion, namely the impact of per-encounter balancing on resources OTHER than basic physical endurance (ie, hit points).



> Here the hero is clearly going to have to rest, even though his "player" might prefer to carry on with adventure, killing Darth Vader, Sauron, and Thulsa Doom before breaking for lunch (then again food is one of those annoying resource details that 4E could probably dispense with).




Contrary to popular belief, hit points are not the sum total of resources.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How I wish you felt that were true....




You lovely devil you, I knew you weren't ignoring me.



>


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> 1>  And this is relevant because...?
> 2>  Contrary to popular belief, hit points are not the sum total of resources.
> 3>  And it is. The fact that there are OTHER novels and movies that make a point of showing people getting tired doesn't change that.
> 4>  Exactly. So why have a formula in the first place?
> 5>  Everything is possible. Some things are more probable than others. Trust me, I'm a statistician.
> 6>  Relevance might also be useful. For all practical purposes, Vance is irrelevant except when it comes to D&D, so pointing to him is equivalent to saying that D&D models itself.
> 7>  IOW, you admit that 4-encounters-per-day models nothing except itself.
> 8>  And this is relevant to 4-encounters-per-day because...?
> 9>  Nonsense. If per-day balancing becomes unnecessary or of lesser importance, then the DM is forcing a minor flavour choice on the players.
> 10>  Yes, I've noticed. Game balance, you know the concept, yes?
> 11>  Exactly.




1.  Because we were talking about novels and you mentioned hitpoints.
2.  Neither is oxygen.  That's not really interesting.
3.  "Other" novels and movies?  There's an implication there that *a* novel or movie supports the original assertion.  Still Helm's Deep do you think?
4.  What formula?  Seriously, a guideline is not a formula.  An estimate is not a formula.  Telling me that my car gets 30 mpg is not a formula.  The word has connotations here that are misleading IMO.  The guideline is there for planning adventures.  Is DnD a literature simulator in the way you use it?
5.  Glad we agree.   (Except the part about trusting a statistician.)
6.  I thought you were a statistician?  Vance is not irrelevant except that you say so, otherwise there's no point either way.  Find a magic system in a novel that you like and include it at the end of your so-far-nonexistent movie or novel that shows a hero fighting all day without resting (and I don't mean fighting the case of the "blahs" or fighting to regain his dignity or something else clever.  I mean a definition of fighting that would relate to the DnD resource issue.)
7.  That my car gets 30 mpg models nothing either.  The idea that this is suppose to model something is a little strange.  The features of the game that create the 4-per-day limit (hitpoints and the various other constructs that serve as resources) are the things that are doing the modelling.  I suppose you could say that the overall resource issue, and the limitation that it places on the PCs is "modelling" some kind of fatigue.
8.  We've been told repeatedly that there are important plot line considerations that being forced to rest *by the ruleset* is getting in the way of.  I suppose when the DM is the one doing the forcing then it's ok.  And this isn't a railroad situation, because somebody on this thread has argued that their players choose the significant plot elements.  (As an aside-AFAICT you overuse the word "nonsense", without really using the word for what it means.  It's not a scholarly version of "I disagree", it actually means something else.)
9.  My lack of understanding is something your synonym technique is so far not fixing.  (BTW- the term "game balance" is a little imprecise, if there is a particular aspect of the game that you're talking about balancing then it would help to be more explicit.)
10.  I accept your apology, the mistake is understandable considering your overuse of the word ludicrous.


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> The example says nothing of the substantive issue under discussion, namely the impact of per-encounter balancing on resources OTHER than basic physical endurance (ie, hit points).




When did you slide the "other than physical endurance" part of it in there?  Oh well, I guess we'll start off with the same steps - you should be familiar with by now.  Give us at least one example, perhaps outline a generalization of a magic system that you think applies to a bulk of fantasy literature, and then outline the differences between it and the DnD magic system if they're not obvious.

Or just make some outlandish statment, don't substantiate it, and call everyone else's ideas ludicrous.  Then duck the issue for a few dozen posts.  That's what I call plan B.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Contrary to popular belief, hit points are not the sum total of resources.




I hear rumors they're not even part of what we've been talking about this whole time.  And there's this wacky suggestion that no one ever ran out of spells at Helm's Deep.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 1.  Because we were talking about novels and you mentioned hitpoints.




To be precise, you mentioned people getting tired, so like the fool I was, I assumed you were talking about physical endurance, for which the closest analog in the D&D ruleset is hit points. That will teach me to make assumptions.



> 2.  Neither is oxygen.  That's not really interesting.




... because oxygen is not a depletable resource in D&D. Unlike certain other things, in addition to hit points. This is not hard.



> 3.  "Other" novels and movies?  There's an implication there that *a* novel or movie supports the original assertion.  Still Helm's Deep do you think?




No.



> 4.  What formula?




4 encounters per day.



> Seriously, a guideline is not a formula.  An estimate is not a formula.  Telling me that my car gets 30 mpg is not a formula.  The word has connotations here that are misleading IMO.




Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it's misleading.



> The guideline is there for planning adventures.




Yes. A pointless guideline, unless one wants to play ASL.



> Is DnD a literature simulator in the way you use it?




Is D&D an Advanced Squad Leader simulator in the way you use it?



> 5.  Glad we agree.   (Except the part about trusting a statistician.)




See, if you had trusted a statistician, you wouldn't be misled into thinking that all things are possible means all things are probable.



> 6.  I thought you were a statistician?  Vance is not irrelevant except that you say so, otherwise there's no point either way.




Vance is irrelevant because that is what D&D sets out to model (and it doesn't even do that very well), thus pointing to him just means D&D models itself. Cf circularity.



> Find a magic system in a novel that you like and include it at the end of your so-far-nonexistent movie or novel that shows a hero fighting all day without resting (and I don't mean fighting the case of the "blahs" or fighting to regain his dignity or something else clever.  I mean a definition of fighting that would relate to the DnD resource issue.)




So... you want an example of someone fighting all day and depleting resources, although the point of depleting resources is to avoid fighting all day. Cute.



> 7.  That my car gets 30 mpg models nothing either.  The idea that this is suppose to model something is a little strange.  The features of the game that create the 4-per-day limit (hitpoints and the various other constructs that serve as resources) are the things that are doing the modelling.  I suppose you could say that the overall resource issue, and the limitation that it places on the PCs is "modelling" some kind of fatigue.




I am glad that you have managed to deduce for yourself something that has been obvious to everyone else debating this issue for the last several years. Very good. Now find me an example of something that 4-encounters-per-day models.



> 8.  We've been told repeatedly that there are important plot line considerations that being forced to rest *by the ruleset* is getting in the way of.  I suppose when the DM is the one doing the forcing then it's ok.  And this isn't a railroad situation, because somebody on this thread has argued that their players choose the significant plot elements.




No, no, no.

For the Nth time. With per-encounter balancing, the DM is the one who tells the PCs when to stop. The PCs are the ones who decide how long to keep going. If they so desire, they can keep going forever, without artificial considerations like having exhausted their per-day resources to worry about. The only "forcing" is if the PCs want to keep going but the DM doesn't want them to, and even if this happens, there are no resource management considerations for the players to worry about (at least by default). Thus from the resource-depletion point of view, whether they do the entire dungeon today, or 50% today and the other 50% tomorrow, is entirely immaterial.

This is entirely different to the DM wanting the PCs to keep going, and having to force them to do so because it would be otherwise prudent to camp. Now it becomes a significant issue whether you do the entire dungeon today, or 50% today and 50% tomorrow. In one, the narrative flow of events happens as a natural consequence; in the other, it requires active DM management. (I know of precious few reasons why a narrative should _require_ you to do half the dungeon today, and the other half tomorrow.)

Is that enough syllables for you?



> (As an aside-AFAICT you overuse the word "nonsense", without really using the word for what it means.  It's not a scholarly version of "I disagree", it actually means something else.)




Yes. It means "nonsense".



> 9.  My lack of understanding is something your synonym technique is so far not fixing.




It's not a synonym.



> (BTW- the term "game balance" is a little imprecise, if there is a particular aspect of the game that you're talking about balancing then it would help to be more explicit.)




Search for the term "nova". Or perhaps "psion", for the most egregious examples of nova-ing.



> 10.  I accept your apology, the mistake is understandable considering your overuse of the word ludicrous.




... which reminds me, I'm still waiting for evidence of the 4-encounters-per-day paradigm in fantasy literature.


----------



## hong

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> When did you slide the "other than physical endurance" part of it in there?




Because I foolishly thought it should have been obvious from the start, given how most of the debate has been around spellcasting, but not to worry, I've now been disabused of that notion.



> Oh well, I guess we'll start off with the same steps - you should be familiar with by now.  Give us at least one example, perhaps outline a generalization of a magic system that you think applies to a bulk of fantasy literature, and then outline the differences between it and the DnD magic system if they're not obvious.




No, no. You point out examples in the source material that the D&D magic system models, with specific regard to the depleting-resources-per-day paradigm. As said before, I've failed to find any (as said before, Vance hardly counts), so maybe you can do better than me.



> Or just make some outlandish statment, don't substantiate it, and call everyone else's ideas ludicrous.  Then duck the issue for a few dozen posts.  That's what I call plan B.




Yes, you're doing very well at it so far.



> I hear rumors they're not even part of what we've been talking about this whole time.  And there's this wacky suggestion that no one ever ran out of spells at Helm's Deep.




Prove that they did.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Heroes in novels sometimes rest. Often enough, after a very hard fight or a long journey.

I don't know of novels that describe the reason for resting in any other way then being tired. Nowhere to they indicate that they do it because they are out of spells. 

I think I had a few novels or movies in which the heroes were out of ammunition, but that rarely lead to them resting. Usually, they just have to switch to martial arts. 

Oh, I think I remember one novel in which a Wizard didn't have the correct spell ready (which is not exactly "out of resources", it's more like "I forget my M16 Carbine at home") which also included a scene where one of the wizards said he was out of spells. But IIRC, they were using Wands (with limited charges, not their "inner" magical resource). And these scenes were all in a Discworld Novel, and I think my colleagues of the Unseen University and their magic is inspired by either Vance or D&D, possibly both, so I am not sure I can really count that.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> However, I've never seen anyone use the excuse "We're out of fireballs for the day" or "I can't use healing magic again until tomorrow" as excuses.




In _A Wizard of Earthsea_ by Ursula LeGuin, Ged (called Sparrowhawk) is chased by the Shadow, and unable to rest, until he finally runs out of magic.  Then he finds a safe haven and rests until his magic is restored.  This happens more than once in the novel.

Likewise, I have read several REH Conan stories in which a wizard uses magic, and then must rest before being able to use it again.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> Is there are reason you are not considering the possibility that per-day may be an _obstacle_ to play which relies on other thresholds of significance, or which is not prudent, and that per-encounter might eliminate this obstacle?




Give me an example of a theshold of significance that per-day is an obstacle to.  I note that by effectively using lower CR encounters (4 goblins vs 10th level fighter), per-day can actually _model_ per encounter to some degree.


----------



## Imaro

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In _A Wizard of Earthsea_ by Ursula LeGuin, Ged (called Sparrowhawk) is chased by the Shadow, and unable to rest, until he finally runs out of magic.  Then he finds a safe haven and rests until his magic is restored.  This happens more than once in the novel.
> 
> Likewise, I have read several REH Conan stories in which a wizard uses magic, and then must rest before being able to use it again.
> 
> 
> RC




Yeah, also Michael Moorcock's Elric, after performing certain acts of sorcery, must rest to regain his strength (or take drugs that replenish him).


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Give me an example of a theshold of significance that per-day is an obstacle to.  I note that by effectively using lower CR encounters (4 goblins vs 10th level fighter), per-day can actually _model_ per encounter to some degree.



 Yes. By having boring fights.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> Could you elaborate?




There are pages of elaboration available in this thread.  I feel like I've already written a bloody thesis on this.  And, frankly, should you not read what I've already written, or read it and go away unconvinced, it won't break my heart.  Really, it won't.  



> It seems to me that we may be using "threat" in different senses. What I had in mind was an encounter in which, during any given round, the players are not confident that the use of per-day resource will not be required to succeed at the encounter - but which, through effective tactical play, ends up being won without the use of such resources.




This assumes that the players, being threatened by an encounter that they are not confident that they can win using per-encounter resources will wait to use per-day resources until they know that they have won, or that they are dead.

This is a very good example of a win/lose encounter, and prudent play would suggest (if you can rest to regain your per-encounter abilities thereafter) that you use whatever big guns you have, and then rest.

Of course, not everyone will play this way.  Some DMs, realizing that this is happening, for example, will suggest making all per-day abilities per-encounter so that they automatically recharge without the extended rest period.  Others will enforce strict time limits to prevent this sort of play.  For some players, who do not care what is or is not prudent play, the issue will be a non-issue from the start.

I feel like I've already written a bloody thesis on this.  And I (or others) have answered this specific claim dozens of times.  I feel at this point that there is, simply put, no burden of proof that will satisfy.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> IMO his recent posts have been relatively cogent and non-argumentative, more of a "miniature platinum sword" spell component.





Not on the basis of what I've seen quoted.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yeah, also Michael Moorcock's Elric, after performing certain acts of sorcery, must rest to regain his strength (or take drugs that replenish him).




Not unlike Underdog from the cartoon......


----------



## hong

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yeah, also Michael Moorcock's Elric, after performing certain acts of sorcery, must rest to regain his strength (or take drugs that replenish him).



 Unless he rests for 8 hours, it doesn't count. And as said by M_R, resting because you're "tired" is not the same as resting because your magic mojo has run out.

(Per-encounter also involves resource depletion, don't forget.)


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not on the basis of what I've seen quoted.



 Tee hee!


----------



## Imaro

helium3 said:
			
		

> It's a long thread and I've got limited time. Could you please clarify what it was that you ran into when you played SW Saga? It sounds like it had something to do with resource management and how it affected player choices? And no, I'm not being snarky.




Sorry it took so long for me to respond, I decided to take a break from this thread.  My problems wih SW(and they aren't "problems" in so far as the game emulates the genre) isd that...

1.  CR's do not line up correctly with PC capabilities.  In the book one stormtrooper is a CR 1 challenge(thus supposedly a challenge for four PC's).  In actual play it was more like ten to fifteen of these was an actual challenge in a straight up fight.  It's great that there are "mooks" in the game but this should be presented to the GM and he should be warned that that's what they are.  

2. Jedi use per-encounter abilities, and it takes something like a CR 4 or 5 adversary to actually challenge them...where they really have to make tactical decisions and planning.  Yet the abilities of a CR 4 or 5 challenge are such that the chance of death is increased for any one PC exponentially.

3. The Jedi have a "healing ability" that is per-encounter, thus hp's do become a per-encounter resource as well, especially if you also purchase an artificial way for the character's to heal as well.  So you have each jedi "healer" who can use Vital Transfer 1 or 2 times per encounter or minute thereafter.  This character can heal(depending on his UTF check)...
DC 15=2(character level)
DC20=3(character level)
DC25=4(character level)
and then must suffer half the damage healed in damage to themself.  The healer can then use med pacs and Treat injury on themselves to regain the small amount of damage they suffered from using it.(See it's powers like these that make starting with a high UTF skill a good idea.) with an average +2 ability bonus, Skill Focus & Trained skill you start at a +12, so most of the time you're healing the DC 20 or 25 level with every roll. 

So, basically(without resorting to increasing the EL artificially) I had either really easy encounters or encounters where, if played intelligently and without fudging someone would probably die.  I posted links earlier in the thread from people who had posted about the same issues.

Now people have claimed my party was optimised, but I had two people new to roleplaying games and three that weren't.  Perhaps WotC instituted the whole"no more rules mastery philosophy" but then they need to test at a level where most players are competent to above competent.


----------



## Jackelope King

I must take issue with the representation of fantasy novels / movies / fiction in general where the weary heroes need to rest as supportive of the per-day resource model.

Heroes in D&D will nearly never rest because they are "tired": they will rest because their resources have been expended. This is a very important difference. "Tired" in the d20 system is represented by the conditions "fatigued" and "exhausted", which add penalties to physical ability scores to represent a character who has pushed himself too far. Mechanically, a wizard who has expended every single one of his spells is completely identical to a wizard who hasn't cast a single spell in terms of their level of fatigue and "tiredness". If a wizard wanted to run a marathon, it wouldn't matter if he started before or after casting all of his spells for the day (unless he was bent on cheating with magic or somesuch), because he doesn't actually become tired from casting spells. He simply looses the ability to cast those spells over again.

If you wish to focus on this discussion on a very narrow mechanical definition of resources, you should also hold to a very narrow mechanical definition of "tired", which D&D spellcasters specifically don't become from casting spells. Certainly you can add this as a description in your own games (as I do), but it isn't supported mechanically in any way, shape, or form by the per-day resource system and Vancean magic system.

So I'll repeat Hong's request: find a specific instance in fantasy literature which isn't based (either explicitly or implicity) off of D&D magic where heroes rest not because "they're tired", but because "they're out of spells".


----------



## wgreen

IanArgent said:
			
		

> The change is being made so that _all classes_ are going to have a _mix_ of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities. Thsi is being done so that playing a wizard is going to allow you to do something "wizardly" in every combat. That's what I out of the new rules, and it sounds like something we will be getting.



Not just something "wizardly," but something _effective_.  If it's just turning "I miss with my crossbow...again" into "I miss with my magic foozle ray...again," I'll be disappointed.

-Will


----------



## Geron Raveneye

Want an easy system to use D&D spells with a quasi-"per encounter" flavour and still have it be a "per day" mechanic in the end? Make every spell cause 1d4 points of subdual damage per spell level (1 point for 0 level spells). At some point, the caster WILL have to rest, and not because he's run out of spells, but because he's close to collapse.  If you feel generous, you can add some kind of "drain check" to see if the amount of damage can be halved. That way, a caster can use his magic whenever he wants, until he keels over. Add some feats that allow the casting of (for example) a number of 0. level spells equal to caster level for free, raise subdual resistance, etc. and you're set.

Personally, I think such a system would, for example, model one of the more prestigious D&D wizards, Raistlin Majere, better from what he did in the novels, than the standard casting system. Also, it probably would model a certain range of magic systems from other books as well. Also, you could finally create Shadowrun D20 with proper mages.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> So I'll repeat Hong's request: find a specific instance in fantasy literature which isn't based (either explicitly or implicity) off of D&D magic where heroes rest not because "they're tired", but because "they're out of spells".




If you mean that they are unable to perform any further magic, it has been done.

If you mean that they are unable to perform D&D spells in a system that isn't based (either explicitly or implicitly) off of D&D magic, then there is little that can be said politely about such a request.

RC


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> So I'll repeat Hong's request: find a specific instance in fantasy literature which isn't based (either explicitly or implicity) off of D&D magic where heroes rest not because "they're tired", but because "they're out of spells".




It doesn't exist (edit: my example doesn't exist, someone else may have one, in any case I'll play along in spite of the fact that you've changed the subject because I don't want you guys to feel bad), and if it did I'm sure it would be irrelevant to Hong anyway (hint, hint).  In fact I can't think of a working magic system in any novel either.  Perhaps someone who has read more fantasy fiction could weigh in with some pointers about how to make DnD a fantasy fiction simulator.

As far as the "tired" thing goes, I think you're making too much of the differences.  Fatigue effects would be hard to keep track of, hitpoints are a crude measure of fatige and a bunch of other things all wrapped into one.  Secondly - the kind of spells that the PCs are typically out of are healing spells - thus it's really the presence of healing magic that probably causes the effect you're talking about.

So while we're looking for people resting because they're out of spells, maybe we should look for an instance of people using healing magic on a daily basis - there might be something there.


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> It doesn't exist (edit: my example doesn't exist, someone else may have one, in any case I'll play along in spite of the fact that you've changed the subject because I don't want you guys to feel bad), and if it did I'm sure it would be irrelevant to Hong anyway (hint, hint).  In fact I can't think of a working magic system in any novel either.  Perhaps someone who has read more fantasy fiction could weigh in with some pointers about how to make DnD a fantasy fiction simulator.



That would be fine. Now you've agreed that D&D's resource system does not serve to really represent fantasy fiction well. We're getting closer to being on the same page



> As far as the "tired" thing goes, I think you're making too much of the differences.



I'm not, the d20 system is.



> Fatigue effects would be hard to keep track of,



They're essential to track in both True20 and Mutants & Masterminds, and they really are incredibly simple to track. You have the condition Fatigued, you have the condition Exhausted (or 2x Fatigued) and you have the condition Unconscious (or 3x Fatigued or 2x Exhausted)



> hitpoints are a crude measure of fatige and a bunch of other things all wrapped into one.



This they can be, especially when broken down into Vitatilty Points/Wound Points, which makes the differences more explicit. But as written, they also require the descriptive text of "being tired", since they don't definitively represent this. However, wizards also don't suffer hit point damage for casting spells, and only the barbarian suffers fatigue from using a special ability (rage), so it still doesn't adequately address "resting because you're tired" vs. "resting because we're out of resources".



> Secondly - the kind of spells that the PCs are typically out of are healing spells - thus it's really the presence of healing magic that probably causes the effect you're talking about.
> 
> So while we're looking for people resting because they're out of spells, maybe we should look for an instance of people using healing magic on a daily basis - there might be something there.



Sure. Go for it! My only problem is that I haven't had time to read a new fantasy novel in months, now, and I've already got two waiting for me


----------



## gizmo33

hong said:
			
		

> Unless he rests for 8 hours, it doesn't count. And as said by M_R, resting because you're "tired" is not the same as resting because your magic mojo has run out.




How nitpicky are you guys going to get and what exactly is the difference between what "counts" and what "doesn't"?  If this thread is about you all discovering something or making some interesting point, that's cool, but if if this is some shallow attempt to just be right and continue to change the subject until you are then I don't see the point.  Whatever conclusion you wind up coming to at the end of this will probably be rendered meaningless as a result of all this flailing back and forth.  Maybe put some of this in context and explain why the per-encounter thing is in itself not an approximation.  Do us a favor and find novel that has the hero regain his spells exactly one minute after he stops fighting when it becomes obvious that the example is needed.

What's the significant difference between 8 hours and 7.5?  4 hours?  10 hours? Isn't it possible that some of this stuff are just game approximations for the general notion that you have to rest for some time in order to benefit from the effects.  Healing works the same way, it's not like you regain hitpoints continually during the day - the idea that you gain them in a lump some after a fixed amount of time is for convenience and is a close-enough approximation.

Remember, the original statement that started all of this was "heroes in novels and movies never rest, they fight all day".  Hong jumps in and tries to defend this statement seemingly by changing the subject where he feels on safer ground.  Whatever point he really wanted to make would have been better served by not pretending it was some other point.  I've tried to help you guys with your argument because I have nothing to gain by not understanding what you're saying, but it's getting to be increasingly a waste of my time because the conversation is not being had in good faith by all persons.  Please try to develop your arguments in ways that someone who doesn't agree with you already can follow them.

If there is an elf character somewhere that is like the elves of DnD (it's not Tolkien) but isn't based explicitly or implicitly (I love that - plausible deniability) on DnD?  Aren't there all kinds of elements that are unique to DnD in their particulars.  Is there some point or significance to showing that an element of DnD is not found to exist identically in a novel where it was invented independently?  Again, what is the point?


----------



## Mallus

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Perhaps someone who has read more fantasy fiction could weigh in with some pointers about how to make DnD a fantasy fiction simulator.



I like to call those pointers 'the rules'.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> That would be fine. Now you've agreed that D&D's resource system does not serve to really represent fantasy fiction well. We're getting closer to being on the same page




I haven't agreed, I've said I don't know.  I can't even tell you what the magic system is for Wizard of Earthsea - seems to me like this is a huge topic so what's the rush?  I don't know how many ribs a person has either - doesn't mean they have a random number.  Give RC and others a chance to weigh in on this before you maneuver this to whatever the next stage is supposed to be.


----------



## gizmo33

Mallus said:
			
		

> I like to call those pointers 'the rules'.




Did you go to the Hong school of riddling and obfuscation?  What are you talking about?  Clearly some of the people here feel that DnD doesn't support the magic system found in novels, so how can it be "the rules"?  Are you supporting them, contradicting them, or saying something else entirely?


----------



## Geron Raveneye

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> That would be fine. Now you've agreed that D&D's resource system does not serve to really represent fantasy fiction well. We're getting closer to being on the same page




Which is, in turn, caused by the pretty well-known, and overall agreed-upon (by most people here, at least) fact that D&D doesn't represent the bulk of fantasy fiction anyway, and isn't meant to either. That's nothing new, and to be honest, bringing up this whole "D&D magic is nothing like fantasy literature magic" is a bit of a strawman (gah, the first time I used that word on a message board, I'm spending too much time here  ), since the general "fantasy literature magic" doesn't exist as a single system either. Every fantasy story has its own set of rules for magic that fits the setting and story the author wants to tell with it. D&D never tried to simulate even one of them to detail, not even Vance's, it simply took most of its inspiration from Vance. 1E didn't, 2E didn't, 3E and 3.5E didn't, and 4E won't most assuredly either.

D&D magic is just that...a magic system for a fairly high-fantasy roleplaying game. And what that is is, or was, in the hands of the respective designers. And the whole thing can easily be understood if you look at all the attempts to model some fantasy literature with D&D in the past and present. In the better attempts, the magic system is ALWAYS changed, if only slightly, to better fit the books they try to adapt. For the D&D-derived campaign worlds, it usually was used "as is" with only superficial alterations, if any. D20 is the most recent incarnation, and what several companies did with the magic system in their D20/OGL systems bears witness to the fact that the baseline never was meant as the be-all and end-all for everything, but just that...a baseline.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'm not, the d20 system is.




This is unsubstantiated.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> They're essential to track in both True20 and Mutants & Masterminds, and they really are incredibly simple to track.




Perhaps, but "incredibly simple", "extremely ludicrous", "perfectly reasonable" - everything with you internet folks is always some bizarre exaggeration.  This is getting to be a waste of my time.  Applying fatigue effects in DnD (like the 3E versions) has always been a bit of a record keeping hassle IME.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> However, wizards also don't suffer hit point damage for casting spells, and only the barbarian suffers fatigue from using a special ability (rage), so it still doesn't adequately address "resting because you're tired" vs. "resting because we're out of resources".




No, the clear game mechanics reason that people rest are to "recover resources", and not always spells.  I don't exactly know the nature of the mental fatigue that causes a spell to be wiped from the caster's mind in DnD, or even if it is fatigue.  But so far no one is filling in those details anyway, I suspect because they don't exist.  Part of my "differences aren't significant" statement is trying to convey that I think you guys are making much of the large amount of possible interpretation that can apply to each DnD mechanic - the game was never about hit locations, fatigues vs. wounds, and the myriad of other details.  This means that there is a range of possible interpretations for the mechanics.  These subtleties are hard to discuss in the super aggressive and hyperbolic environment of this thread.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Sure. Go for it! My only problem is that I haven't had time to read a new fantasy novel in months, now, and I've already got two waiting for me




Wait - I can't find an example of something and that's taken to be me conceding your point.  You can't/won't find an example of something and that's an appeal for me to do more reading?    The point about DnD having to be a literature simulator is not really mine to make, and given the adversarial nature of this thread it doesn't make sense to help out a lot when my contribution will not be taken in good faith.


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> How nitpicky are you guys going to get and what exactly is the difference between what "counts" and what "doesn't"?



I was told that non-expendible resources are irrelevant to this discussion. I was also told that my point that you can measure an encounter's significance by how your resources have dwindled by the end of it as "irrelevant". I hate to be nitpicky, but my arguments were handwaved away because of just this reason.



> If this thread is about you all discovering something or making some interesting point, that's cool, but if if this is some shallow attempt to just be right and continue to change the subject until you are then I don't see the point.



All I'm trying to do is to illustrate that the slippery-slope perception that "per-encounter" means "no settings between GODLIKE UNSTOPABLE and THIS ENCOUNTER WILL KILL YOU" is incorrect, and that this system allows DMs and players more flexibility than the current per-day only resource system. The main argumented presented against the per-encounter system (that it must make all encounters deadly to make them significant) has thus far failed to convince me because I've been running per-encounter games for over a year now, and I haven't seen this problem. That's all. I have experience with this sort of system, and your concerns are the ones I shared, but it isn't a problem. It may be a matter of playstyle, but my group has just as much fun in a per-encounter system like Iron Heroes or M&M as they do in a per-day game like D&D or a story-driven game like Vampire, but we've found the per-encounter system is much less limiting in terms of forcing breaks in the action.

That's all I'm trying to point out.


----------



## Jackelope King

First, please stop being so defensive, gizmo. I'm not asking you to go scrounge the library. I wasn't trying to shout "LOL you lose". I was trying to be encouraging. My appologies if I came off as otherwise: it wasn't my intent.

And as for tracking fatigue...


			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> This is unsubstantiated.



http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#fatigued
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#exhausted



> Perhaps, but "incredibly simple", "extremely ludicrous", "perfectly reasonable" - everything with you internet folks is always some bizarre exaggeration.  This is getting to be a waste of my time.  Applying fatigue effects in DnD (like the 3E versions) has always been a bit of a record keeping hassle IME.



That's fine. In my experience, it's proven to be much easier to track a small number of conditions like Injury, Fatigue, etc. than it is to track (and more specifically, prepare) a huge pool of resources.



> No, the clear game mechanics reason that people rest are to "recover resources", and not always spells.  I don't exactly know the nature of the mental fatigue that causes a spell to be wiped from the caster's mind in DnD, or even if it is fatigue.  But so far no one is filling in those details anyway, I suspect because they don't exist.  Part of my "differences aren't significant" statement is trying to convey that I think you guys are making much of the large amount of possible interpretation that can apply to each DnD mechanic - the game was never about hit locations, fatigues vs. wounds, and the myriad of other details.  This means that there is a range of possible interpretations for the mechanics.  These subtleties are hard to discuss in the super aggressive and hyperbolic environment of this thread.



I had no intent of being "super aggressive and hyperbolic". I will do my best to tone this down, and I appologize.



> Wait - I can't find an example of something and that's taken to be me conceding your point.  You can't/won't find an example of something and that's an appeal for me to do more reading?    The point about DnD having to be a literature simulator is not really mine to make, and given the adversarial nature of this thread it doesn't make sense to help out a lot when my contribution will not be taken in good faith.



See above. I am not trying to insult/attack/tromp over you. I was being friendly and encouraging you to see what others have to say. I'm honestly interested in what they find because I'm always looking for good reads (even if I don't have the time to read them) and for new ways to look at the game.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I was told that non-expendible resources are irrelevant to this discussion. I was also told that my point that you can measure an encounter's significance by how your resources have dwindled by the end of it as "irrelevant". I hate to be nitpicky, but my arguments were handwaved away because of just this reason.




Ok, IMO that's a fair objection in it's general sense - if you don't understand why someone though your point was irrelevant to the topic you should have had them explain it.  Not all points are equally relevant though - I'm not objecting to the "show me 8 hours, not 7.5 hours!" because it simply asserts irrelevance.  It asserts it in a way that's not clear is itself relevant to the topic IMO (don't know how else to say it).

In the first case (measuring non-expendible resources).  I would think that discussing non-expendable resources would be irrelevant because you don't need to rest (either a minute, a day, or whatever) to recover them.  Someone objected earlier to my assertion that being able to swing a sword in DnD is a resource, on the same grounds.  



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> All I'm trying to do is to illustrate that the slippery-slope perception that "per-encounter" means "no settings between GODLIKE UNSTOPABLE and THIS ENCOUNTER WILL KILL YOU" is incorrect,




I agree.  Your characterization of what I've been saying here is inaccurate.  If it's a characterization of others' statements, or an amalgamation of a bunch of different statements, I can't answer for that.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> and that this system allows DMs and players more flexibility than the current per-day only resource system.




Yes, removing limitations inherently makes things more flexible, I don't think anyone disputes that.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The main argumented presented against the per-encounter system (that it must make all encounters deadly to make them significant) has thus far failed to convince me because I've been running per-encounter games for over a year now, and I haven't seen this problem. That's all. I have experience with this sort of system, and your concerns are the ones I shared, but it isn't a problem.




Imaro has had experience with the system and has found this to be an issue.  I'd imagine that personal preferences make a difference in the ultimate outcome of any rule system.  I believe it was discussed earlier, with an example being the fatality rate.  If a game system creates a certain rate of fatality for PCs, DMs IME will adjust things until it brings it back to what they want.  There is always an interpretation process that the DM applies to the ruleset.  However, I think most of the time the DM would rather not "fight against" the system because he should do what he wants.  In other cases, it's probably not much of a struggle to change things if it mirrors the way you conduct your games anyway.  What I'm saying is that there are lots of reasons I can think of as to why your experiences have been what they are.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> That's all I'm trying to point out.




OK.  I'll reread it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imagine that you are driving down the road.  You need to know where you are.  You consult your road map.

Suddenly, the guy in the back seat says, "Hey!  There's a tree out there, but no tree on the map!  What a crappy map!"

You say, "For the map to be representational in the way I need it to be, it doesn't have to mark every tree."

"Oh yeah?" the guy in the back retorts.  "You admit that your map does not serve to really represent this area well.  We're getting closer to being on the same page."

The simple answer is that the magic systems of fantasy fiction do not have to map onto the D&D magic system with 1:1 correspondence in order for one to represent the other well _with respect to its use in the game system_.

As has been pointed out already, no fictional universe has a system of magic that, as written, would work for the needs of a role-playing game, unless it was specifically derived from a role-playing game.  Nor should a model correspond 1:1 with what it models in all respects, or it ceases to be any easier to use than the original which it seeks to simplify.  A map that shows every blade of grass is too unweildy to use as a roadmap; a magic system that tracks every condition in the game world to determine results is to unweildy to use in a game.

_Given the needs of the game_, the D&D magic system does (IMHO) a very good job of both maintaining a fictional feel and being workable in a game system.  Obviously, it is not perfect (or I'd not have houseruled it myself!) and people will have differing opinions on how well it meets each of the goals aforementioned.

That it is not an exact model, especially as one gets more exacting, is not a valid argument IMHO.  Certainly no more so than saying that I cannot find a novel in which a longsword does 1d8 hit points of damage, or that I cannot find a novel in which any cleric casts precisely the same spells as in D&D.  Certainly, if this is the claim levelled against the current system, the same claim will be equally valid against the per-encounter system of 4e.

And, for the record, wizards in Conan need to rest more than 20 minutes.  In the one Conan novel, it is the whole night, as I recall, and an exact number of hours might have been given.  In the passage that I previously quoted from _The Gods of Mars_, John Carter and Tars Tarkas slept fourteen hours.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Ok, IMO that's a fair objection in it's general sense - if you don't understand why someone though your point was irrelevant to the topic you should have had them explain it.  Not all points are equally relevant though - I'm not objecting to the "show me 8 hours, not 7.5 hours!" because it simply asserts irrelevance.  It asserts it in a way that's not clear is itself relevant to the topic IMO (don't know how else to say it).
> 
> In the first case (measuring non-expendible resources).  I would think that discussing non-expendable resources would be irrelevant because you don't need to rest (either a minute, a day, or whatever) to recover them.  Someone objected earlier to my assertion that being able to swing a sword in DnD is a resource, on the same grounds.



My appologies. I was typing hastily. I was refering to the discussion I posted about "non-personal resources", like position, clout, favor, etc. which can be gained or lost as a result of an encounter when taken in context with the rest of the game world. This was my oversight in typing that last post.  



> I agree.  Your characterization of what I've been saying here is inaccurate.  If it's a characterization of others' statements, or an amalgamation of a bunch of different statements, I can't answer for that.



You are correct. This was more in reference to RC's analysis where he concludes that an encounter that doesn't consume per-day resources is irrelevant.



> Yes, removing limitations inherently makes things more flexible, I don't think anyone disputes that.



Precisely 

I point this out because I feel that this increased flexibility, at the cost of losing the tactical framework of managing per-day resources, is a net improvement for the system.



> Imaro has had experience with the system and has found this to be an issue.  I'd imagine that personal preferences make a difference in the ultimate outcome of any rule system.  I believe it was discussed earlier, with an example being the fatality rate.  If a game system creates a certain rate of fatality for PCs, DMs IME will adjust things until it brings it back to what they want.  There is always an interpretation process that the DM applies to the ruleset.  However, I think most of the time the DM would rather not "fight against" the system because he should do what he wants.  In other cases, it's probably not much of a struggle to change things if it mirrors the way you conduct your games anyway.  What I'm saying is that there are lots of reasons I can think of as to why your experiences have been what they are.



It does take a little getting used to. It was odd at first when PCs were always going into fights fresh, but it only took a few sessions for me to really get my head around a per-encounter system. After that, I knew managed to get around my preconcieved notions that fights should be scaled to account for a percipitous drop in PC capabilities and just designed the encounters to make each one the best it could be.



> OK.  I'll reread it.



Thanks!


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> First, please stop being so defensive, gizmo. I'm not asking you to go scrounge the library. I wasn't trying to shout "LOL you lose". I was trying to be encouraging. My appologies if I came off as otherwise: it wasn't my intent.




Some of your earlier comments seem to be in support of some general ideas on this thread that I've found to be argumentative and misleading.  It's entirely possible that you just didn't see the context to these earlier statements in the same way that I did and that your support of them was meant differently than I took it.  I'll just focus on the stuff of substance that you're writing and make less of my interpretations.  I'm sorry - it seems likely that I've misunderstood your intentions.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Imagine that you are driving down the road.  You need to know where you are.  You consult your road map.
> 
> Suddenly, the guy in the back seat says, "Hey!  There's a tree out there, but no tree on the map!  What a crappy map!"
> 
> You say, "For the map to be representational in the way I need it to be, it doesn't have to mark every tree."
> 
> "Oh yeah?" the guy in the back retorts.  "You admit that your map does not serve to really represent this area well.  We're getting closer to being on the same page."
> <snip>
> RC



We are getting closer to the same page, RC. I'm not claiming that every single blade of grass need be statted or that absolute lock-step adherence to the words of any novelist are even desireable. What I am claiming is that the resource management system (magic specifically in this case), while suitable for representing the fantastic, is not necessarily the best (either in terms of modeling the genre or in terms of rules... we've both houseruled it ).

My position is just that the current system does not serve the needs of the game (mechanically and respresentatively) as well as a per-encounter system would. This was merely an illustration of it.

However, I'll do better to avoid talking in extremes.


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Some of your earlier comments seem to be in support of some general ideas on this thread that I've found to be argumentative and misleading.  It's entirely possible that you just didn't see the context to these earlier statements in the same way that I did and that your support of them was meant differently than I took it.  I'll just focus on the stuff of substance that you're writing and make less of my interpretations.  I'm sorry - it seems likely that I've misunderstood your intentions.



No worries!  Just trying to calm things down a little bit... discussions are always more fruitful when people are reasonable, and I'm earnestly interested in seeing where this one goes.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#fatigued
> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#exhausted




The *existence* of some kind of fatigue rules doesn't establish, IMO, that hitpoints do not include fatigue in what they model.  AFAIK the fatigue rules don't apply to basic combat, just some special circumstances like barbarian rage and spell effects.  I think it's a consequence of the history of hitpoints as being an abstraction of this combination of effects in earlier editions.  I'm not familiar with how 3E explicitly describes them but the basic mechanics of combat in 3E haven't changed, and so I would expect the attributes that are being used to model the same things.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> That's fine. In my experience, it's proven to be much easier to track a small number of conditions like Injury, Fatigue, etc. than it is to track (and more specifically, prepare) a huge pool of resources.




The condition doesn't really do anything though, it's the modifiers to the various other abilities and stuff that the condition applies to, and it's remembering and applying those modifiers that IME is harder than the relatively simpler task of keeping track of a single number (hit points).  My comments apply to DnD though, I don't know how this system works out in other games.


I had no intent of being "super aggressive and hyperbolic". I will do my best to tone this down, and I appologize.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> See above. I am not trying to insult/attack/tromp over you. I was being friendly and encouraging you to see what others have to say. I'm honestly interested in what they find because I'm always looking for good reads (even if I don't have the time to read them) and for new ways to look at the game.




Me too.  I started out as slightly skeptical (edit: ok, slightly is an exaggeration) but interested about an assertion that Hong was defending regarding movies and novels.  As post after post failed to do anything other than let one rather vague example trickle out, I wound up feeling like this whole "find me an example" thing was just a tactic.  And *right* after I tried to remind folks that my earlier requests for examples had been brushed aside, it's when I read your unfortunately (for me) timed statement about me doing more reading.  Like I said, I think I over-reacted because of the proximity and similarity of your comments to others.  The thing about examples is that, like you point out, even if they don't support my argument they're at least interesting to read about in their own right.


----------



## Mallus

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Did you go to the Hong school of riddling and obfuscation?



No, I'm self-taught  



> Clearly some of the people here feel that DnD doesn't support the magic system found in novels, so how can it be "the rules"?  Are you supporting them, contradicting them, or saying something else entirely?



I've always called D&D a fantasy novel simulator.

Therefore, it's not a question of providing pointers to make the game into a fantasy novel simulator. It's already one. 

Ergo, the rules can be seen as the 'pointers' you requested.

Also, I think the game can be made into a better fantasy novel simulator. Altering the encounter model and related resource attrition paradigm seems like a good place to start.

Clearer?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> You are correct. This was more in reference to RC's analysis where he concludes that an encounter that doesn't consume per-day resources is irrelevant.




This is a misrepresentation of my position.

I think I was very clear that non-mechanical thresholds of significance were not relevant only in terms of my analysis, which seeks to examine the logical consequences of changing the existing mechanical threshold.

An encounter that doesn't consume per-day resources is not irrelevant, but is insignificant in terms of mechanical threshold of significance in a system that combines per-day and per-encounter resources, barring some other factor (such as a risk/reward ratio to resting) that makes it significant.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> We are getting closer to the same page, RC. I'm not claiming that every single blade of grass need be statted or that absolute lock-step adherence to the words of any novelist are even desireable. What I am claiming is that the resource management system (magic specifically in this case), while suitable for representing the fantastic, is not necessarily the best (either in terms of modeling the genre or in terms of rules... we've both houseruled it ).




Because I've houseruled aspects of a resource-management system does not mean that I agree that a resource-management system is not necessarily the best type of model.  

If I am choosing between overarching systems A and B, each of which has several subsystems, it is quite possible to say that A is better than B, even though A has some subsystems that need work, or even in the case that B has several subsystems that are superior to A's subsystems.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is a misrepresentation of my position.
> 
> I think I was very clear that non-mechanical thresholds of significance were not relevant only in terms of my analysis, which seeks to examine the logical consequences of changing the existing mechanical threshold.
> 
> An encounter that doesn't consume per-day resources is not irrelevant, but is insignificant in terms of mechanical threshold of significance in a system that combines per-day and per-encounter resources, barring some other factor (such as a risk/reward ratio to resting) that makes it significant.
> 
> RC



I appologize. I did not intend to misrepresent your position. However, I must also still conclude that if your logical analysis does not include the reality of non-personal resources, then it isn't sufficient to resolve the question.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Because I've houseruled aspects of a resource-management system does not mean that I agree that a resource-management system is not necessarily the best type of model.
> 
> If I am choosing between overarching systems A and B, each of which has several subsystems, it is quite possible to say that A is better than B, even though A has some subsystems that need work, or even in the case that B has several subsystems that are superior to A's subsystems.
> 
> RC



That's not a problem. Would it be more accurate to say that you hold that a per-day resource management system is superior because it allows for attrition, which is necessary to make encounters significant in actual gameplay?


----------



## Mieric

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Hmmm... thinking 'bout that... what about a "Tome of Vancian Magic" released shortly after 4E, perhaps even by a 3rd-party-publisher (assuming quality work)... perhaps from Necromancer Games (with the new tagline: "4th Edition rules, 3rd edition feel!")?
> 
> I see the possibility that such a product will pop up soon after 4E. Would you buy and use it? (sheer curiosity)




Definately, as it would save me from having to do it for myself.


----------



## helium3

Imaro said:
			
		

> Sorry it took so long for me to respond, I decided to take a break from this thread.  My problems wih SW(and they aren't "problems" in so far as the game emulates the genre) isd that...




Thanks for the response. It took me a while but I finally found where you linked to that thread on rpg.net. Once their server is back up i'll take a look at it.

What was your player's response to combat not being very threatening in most cases? My hunch is that they thought it was cool at first because they felt so "badass" but then got bored with it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I appologize. I did not intend to misrepresent your position. However, I must also still conclude that if your logical analysis does not include the reality of non-personal resources, then it isn't sufficient to resolve the question.




To resolve what question?



> That's not a problem. Would it be more accurate to say that you hold that a per-day resource management system is superior because it allows for attrition, which is necessary to make encounters significant in actual gameplay?




No.

It would be more accurate to say that I hold that a per-day resource management system is superior because it allows for attrition, which is an importent means for making encounters significant in actual gameplay if your game is intended to model classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

helium3 said:
			
		

> My hunch is that they thought it was cool at first because they felt so "badass" but then got bored with it.





That is my expectation as well.


RC


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It would be more accurate to say that I hold that a per-day resource management system is superior because it allows for attrition, which is an importent means for making encounters significant in actual gameplay if your game is intended to model classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy.



But is it a necessary means? Couldn't an attrition-free system like the one in M&M work just as well? 

Your stated upthread that the reason you didn't like M&M for fantasy games was related to verisimilitude, not the gameplay choices offered.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> To resolve what question?



Overall, the question of whether per-encounter resources are at least as good as if not better than per-day resources for a D&D game.



> No.
> 
> It would be more accurate to say that I hold that a per-day resource management system is superior because it allows for attrition, which is an importent means for making encounters significant in actual gameplay if your game is intended to model classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy.
> 
> RC



My thanks for the clarification.

I believe that my earlier point that there is a difference between being "out of resources" and "being tired" is important here, since classic fantasy and adventure fiction heroes generally tend to rest because of fatigue or injuries, not because they've run out of a finite, personal resource. In that regard, I feel that it's not a good fit for most fiction that D&D is based upon. Rather, I feel that this per-day system imposes artificial restrictions on what the DM and the group can accomplish in a day in a way that simply isn't found in the genres the game attempts to emulate, and the system which the designers describe is a good compromise that still allows for resource management (admittedly focused on each individual encounter, which in my mind is good to make each encounter more significant and exciting) while minimizing the need to rest due to artificial restrictions and disrupt the pace of the game.

This is how the per-day resource system impacts upon my style of gameplay, where when the PCs rest, the world carries on. We can summarize the whole thing by saying, "You rest for eight hours," which takes a second, but the rest of the world doesn't stop when the PCs do. I guess I'm more of a simmulationist than a gamist in terms of modeling a world that reacts realistically to the actions of the PCs.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> But is it a necessary means? Couldn't an attrition-free system like the one in M&M work just as well?




A purely attrition-free system would sidestep the problem of resting to regain resources after an hour of adventuring, certainly.  However, I don't believe that an attrition-free system would work as well for D&D overall.

Of course, my D&D models classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy fiction.  You could certainly do Harry Potter, for example, without attrition, or Charles de Lint.  Lack of attrition, though, damages any attempt to create a world in which Conan, John Carter, etc., would feel "at home" in.  

IMHO, resource manangement is a large part of what made early D&D successful, and it is an important mechanical part of having encounters with beings that cannot kill the heroes by themselves nonetheless having mechanical significance within the context of the game.

To some degree, players are always going to make choices on the basis of the rules, and therefore IMHO verisimilitude is inextricably linked to the gameplay choices offered.


----------



## Jackelope King

_EDIT: Question was answered before I posted. Post removed for relevancy_


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A purely attrition-free system would sidestep the problem of resting to regain resources after an hour of adventuring, certainly.  However, I don't believe that an attrition-free system would work as well for D&D overall.
> 
> Of course, my D&D models classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy fiction.  You could certainly do Harry Potter, for example, without attrition, or Charles de Lint.  Lack of attrition, though, damages any attempt to create a world in which Conan, John Carter, etc., would feel "at home" in.
> 
> IMHO, resource manangement is a large part of what made early D&D successful, and it is an important mechanical part of having encounters with beings that cannot kill the heroes by themselves nonetheless having mechanical significance within the context of the game.
> 
> To some degree, players are always going to make choices on the basis of the rules, and therefore IMHO verisimilitude is inextricably linked to the gameplay choices offered.



A very fair response. However, do you believe that there will be zero attrition in the system the designers are talking about for 4e? Even M&M can have a degree of attrition if you choose to have it (very simply removing the Energizing extra on the Healing power, or not allowing it to heal non-damage conditions, like Drains), and True20 uses it in its spellcasting system (with actual fatigue). None of these are based on managing specific, packaged, expendible resources. In fact, I don't think it'd be too hard to use M&M to create a very appropriate Conan-esque game, where the heroes walk away from fights bloody and bruised and have to rest and recover because they're physically exhausted.

... it just wouldn't necessarily have to include expendible per-day resources.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Overall, the question of whether per-encounter resources are at least as good as if not better than per-day resources for a D&D game.




Ah.  In that case, I say "No".



> I believe that my earlier point that there is a difference between being "out of resources" and "being tired" is important here, since classic fantasy and adventure fiction heroes generally tend to rest because of fatigue or injuries, not because they've run out of a finite, personal resource.




Personal energy is a finite, personal resource.  It is one of the things that hit points model.



> In that regard, I feel that it's not a good fit for most fiction that D&D is based upon. Rather, I feel that this per-day system imposes artificial restrictions on what the DM and the group can accomplish in a day in a way that simply isn't found in the genres the game attempts to emulate




It depends, I suppose, on what genres you believe the game attempts to emulate.  Certainly, there are anime in which characters can fight all day.  Pokemon, for instance, supposes that the critters recharge on a "per-encounter" basis while resting in their tiny balls.

Most of the classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy fiction I've read suggests otherwise, however.  While John Carter can fight green Martians with abandon, the toll of fighting wears him down whether it is in a single encounter or spread among several encounters.  Likewise, while on the surface Conan might seem to have "per encounter" reserves, in practice, Conan is concerned with (i.e., treats as significant) encounters that would be mechanically insignificant in a per-encounter model.

Moreover, while you continue to use the term "artificial restrictions", you haven't quantified why these restrictions are artificial, but the restrictions within a given encounter are not.  You say "I guess I'm more of a simmulationist than a gamist in terms of modeling a world that reacts realistically to the actions of the PCs" but I say that you seem more a storyteller or gamist than a simulationist, because what you are doing seems less a simulation and more an artificial construct for artificial story or game concerns. 

Realistically, people really do suffer from attrition until being able to rest for a significant period of time (and often, until they can sleep).  Damage doesn't fully heal between encounters, or even overnight.  Straining one's mental resources to the utmost does require downtime to recover -- as any student cramming for exams or writing a thesis can tell you.  

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> However, do you believe that there will be zero attrition in the system the designers are talking about for 4e?




Obviously not, or I wouldn't have written so many pages analyzing why the per-encounter/per-day resource scheme was unlikely, by itself, to resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day.

RC


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A purely attrition-free system would sidestep the problem of resting to regain resources after an hour of adventuring, certainly.



It would. That's not my big issue with the attrition model, though. What I don't like is the overly predictable encounter structurel it pretty much forces on adventure design, and the fact that it works best in a static environment where the players basically control how much danger they face.



> However, I don't believe that an attrition-free system would work as well for D&D overall.



Oh, it might not. But after all these pages of thread, I still haven't seen _why_? I keep falling back on thinking "'Gee, our M&M campaign is going swimmingly, even though Joseirus (the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling) can drop pyramids on Nazi's all day long." 



> Of course, my D&D models classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy fiction.



Mine models a somewhat more postmodern take on classic adventure fiction. Not that it's particularly relevant. 



> You could certainly do Harry Potter, for example, without attrition, or Charles de Lint.



Those are good examples. But you can certainly find more novels where you can infer a very loose resource management model for magic. 



> Lack of attrition, though, damages any attempt to create a world in which Conan, John Carter, etc., would feel "at home" in.



See, I just don't see how this relates to the resource depletion/challenge model in D&D. In D&D, the only resource worth tracking is magic, and neither play a role in Conan or John Carter's ability to kick ass. If anything, characters in traditional pulp action stories more closely map to a per-encounter model. They can tire themselves in a fight but recover superhumanly quickly. Plus, they have 'special moves' that only become available after they've been severely beaten/look down for the count...for my money, that's how you do Conan (doesn't Iron Heroes already use a mechanic like that?). Not through the standard attrition model. 



> To some degree, players are always going to make choices on the basis of the rules, and therefore IMHO verisimilitude is inextricably linked to the gameplay choices offered.



Sure. But some players find that the rules force them into making choices that hurt the sense of verisimilitude they're after. Choices they wouldn't have to make under a different challenge paradigm. 

Put another way, it's nice when the mechanics reward you for playing the game in a manner you enjoy. Of course, this also works as a fool-proof argument for _keeping_ a strict resource management...


----------



## Jackelope King

I think I'm also being unclear here, RC. I don't mind hit points being a measure of attrition. That's explicitly what they're for, and even though I prefer using conditions to model health (M&M, True20 damage track, etc.), these are a _de facto_ limit that I'm more than willing to accept, because that _is_ something you see in fiction. Heroes rest because injuries or fatigue prevent them from going on, not because they only prepared two fireballs today. Hit points do a good enough job at modeling this (and the idea of thresholds sounds like they might do even better in 4e).

My appologies for being unclear. I think we were talking past one another on the issue of hit points for too long.


----------



## Mallus

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Even M&M can have a degree of attrition if you choose to have it...



Yes, you can run out of Hero Points...



> In fact, I don't think it'd be too hard to use M&M to create a very appropriate Conan-esque game, where the heroes walk away from fights bloody and bruised and have to rest and recover because they're physically exhausted.
> 
> ... it just wouldn't necessarily have to include expendible per-day resources.



Not hard at all...

It wouldn't have operational level resource management. And if that's what you're after, then the game's been diminished.


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Most of the classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy fiction I've read suggests otherwise, however.  While John Carter can fight green Martians with abandon, the toll of fighting wears him down whether it is in a single encounter or spread among several encounters.  Likewise, while on the surface Conan might seem to have "per encounter" reserves, in practice, Conan is concerned with (i.e., treats as significant) encounters that would be mechanically insignificant in a per-encounter model.




Frankly, most of my reading suggests otherwise to yours. I've read a lot of both the Mars stories and Conan (at least the Howard Conan), and while you may have segments in the stories where both Carter and Conan are described as tired and losing energy, both of them always seem capable of continuing to kick just as much ass in any fight as ever. I really can't recall a time in a Carter or Conan story where either of them is actually defeated due to tiredness. And if they're described as tired but it has no effect, then it maps very well to a per-encounter model.



> Realistically, people really do suffer from attrition until being able to rest for a significant period of time (and often, until they can sleep).  Damage doesn't fully heal between encounters, or even overnight.  Straining one's mental resources to the utmost does require downtime to recover -- as any student cramming for exams or writing a thesis can tell you.




True, but since people in D&D aren't realistically people as we meet in the world around us, especially once they have a few levels, how does that really matter? People in D&D, especially PCs, are much closer to mythical characters. And Cuchulainn, as far as I can recall, just about wrote the book on per-encounter abilities.


----------



## gizmo33

Mallus said:
			
		

> Clearer?




Yes, thanks.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> It would. That's not my big issue with the attrition model, though. What I don't like is the overly predictable encounter structurel it pretty much forces on adventure design, and the fact that it works best in a static environment where the players basically control how much danger they face.




There's a big difference, then.

I _like_ that PC choices have such an overall effect on their experience of the game.

I also have never seen evidenc that the attrition model forces a predictable encounter structure on adventure design.

Indeed, that the PCs can choose encounter structure, and that a predictable encounter structure is forced, seem to be mutually exclusive to me.

YMMV, and obviously does.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> I really can't recall a time in a Carter or Conan story where either of them is actually defeated due to tiredness. And if they're described as tired but it has no effect, then it maps very well to a per-encounter model.




If I pull quotes where classic adventure/fantasy characters are defeated due to tiredness, will you accept that as evidence that the attrition model is superior at modelling this sort of fiction?  What if the character specifically says he was close to defeat due to tiredness, but managed to escape the fight?  Does that count?

Because I happen to be re-reading _The Gods of Mars_ right now.

If not, why not?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> And if they're described as tired but it has no effect, then it maps very well to a per-encounter model.




Here, it is my opinion that they are tired, it does have an effect, but they manage to win anyway.  This is because I don't view "knowing that they win" as something which should be mapped into the game system.  The very idea of it turns me off completely, as player or DM.



> True, but since people in D&D aren't realistically people as we meet in the world around us, especially once they have a few levels, how does that really matter? People in D&D, especially PCs, are much closer to mythical characters. And Cuchulainn, as far as I can recall, just about wrote the book on per-encounter abilities.




It only matters in terms of the "Oh, then you must be a gamist whereas I am a simulationist" argument.

RC


----------



## gizmo33

shilsen said:
			
		

> Frankly, most of my reading suggests otherwise to yours. I've read a lot of both the Mars stories and Conan (at least the Howard Conan), and while you may have segments in the stories where both Carter and Conan are described as tired and losing energy, both of them always seem capable of continuing to kick just as much ass in any fight as ever.




This is very subjective and difficult IMO.  Howard's descriptions seems to switch perspective between Conan's and an outsiders, meaning that at times you don't know what is going on or whether Conan really is tired or not.  For example:  the frequent passages that describe Conan with an analogy like "like a wounded tiger" or something.  That sort of thing is very much an external perspective on his condition.  Yes, he continues to kill people even when he's wounded or tired.

One good story to analyze as far as sheer fatigue would be "Frost Giant's Daughter".  He's stumbling around chasing after a phantom, and though while it's a matter of interpretation, I find the story to work in part because you, as the reader, are left wondering whether or not Conan is hallucinating during the story as a result of fatigue and exposure.  Then again when the Frost Giants jump out he dispatches both rather easily (compared to his more prolonged fights with man-like apes and such), in spite of the fact that he's been wounded.

There's another instance in a story I recently red ("Scarlet Citidel" I think) where the enemy wizard has Conan fight his warriors for a while, before stepping forward and felling him with a poison touch attack.  You could interpret that as Conan being vulnerable to the attack because of fatigue (although the supernatural quickness of the wizard is referenced).  However, I can't think of a situation where Howard is explicit about any of Conan's physical weaknesses - as I said he tends to change perspective to that of an observer when Conan is in desperate straights.

On the "Phoenix on the Sword" there is a point where a summoned demon is ready to kill Conan, he's laying on the floor and manages to get out of it at the last minute.  Afterwards he is having his wounds attended to as they discuss the events that transpired.  Seems like such a denoument is consistent with the idea that Conan is hurt and will rest for a while - otherwise why not just sling his sword over his shoulder and head down to the local tavern to talk about it?  (Ok, he is king at this point, but I can still imagine him patronizing taverns.) 



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> I really can't recall a time in a Carter or Conan story where either of them is actually defeated due to tiredness.




Several Conan stories start with him waking up underneath of a pile of corpses on a battlefield.   



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> And if they're described as tired but it has no effect, then it maps very well to a per-encounter model.




The reader doesn't have access to Conan's stats.  He doesn't really know what Conan's capabilities are because he can't re-run the battle with Conan fully rested.  It's clear that Conan has superhuman stamina, but at the same time he is often described as being tired and I think it would be taken as a given that his capabilities would be diminished.  I don't expect someone familiar with boxing and physical exertion like Howard to completely dismiss physical limitations in such a way.  It's pretty much what I would imagine a high level fighter in DnD would look like, and the fact that he's low on hitpoints (hence the desperation in the narrative that you see when Conan has been in battle for a while) doesn't mean he's been defeated.  Even Conan's bad days are better than other people's good days.  



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> True, but since people in D&D aren't realistically people as we meet in the world around us, especially once they have a few levels, how does that really matter? People in D&D, especially PCs, are much closer to mythical characters. And Cuchulainn, as far as I can recall, just about wrote the book on per-encounter abilities.




Cuchulainn is probably one of the most extreme examples you can possibly find.  Borders on Pecos Bill riding around on a tornado.  Cuchulainn holds off an entire kingdom worth of people just because of some curse - I'm sure you're familiar with all that.  Bottom line is that this very much is a gaming style issue as well, certain for a game based on tall-tales or superhero comics, quicker recovery is more acceptable.  It's a matter of opinion and degree otherwise.


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If I pull quotes where classic adventure/fantasy characters are defeated due to tiredness, will you accept that as evidence that the attrition model is superior at modelling this sort of fiction?




Sure. I wouldn't doubt that the attrition model is superior at modelling that sort of fiction. But then I'm firmly in the camp which says D&D is lousy at modelling most classic/adventure fiction beyond D&D, so I'd probably think even "superior" is only comparative and it doesn't model it well at all.



> What if the character specifically says he was close to defeat due to tiredness, but managed to escape the fight?  Does that count?




Marginally. In my game (esp. when I'm writing it up in story hour format), I may describe a character who's damaged as having been tired and less functional than usual. But, in reality, he was just as functional as before, since in D&D you're as functional with 1 hp as you are with 100 hp when it comes to being able to swing a sword or sling a spell. So a description which doesn't really have any mechanical effect doesn't count that much to me. If Conan says he was near defeat from tiredness, then he wasn't tired enough for it to count.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Cuchulainn is probably one of the most extreme examples you can possibly find. Borders on Pecos Bill riding around on a tornado. Cuchulainn holds off an entire kingdom worth of people just because of some curse - I'm sure you're familiar with all that. Bottom line is that this very much is a gaming style issue as well, certain for a game based on tall-tales or superhero comics, quicker recovery is more acceptable. It's a matter of opinion and degree otherwise.




Agreed about the gaming style issue. I just think that without heavy house-ruling, D&D (esp. from the double-digit levels) in all editions has always been much closer to Cuchulainn than Conan. What the PCs in my current game can do at 13th lvl is very clearly in the same category as one finds in mythic heroes. And from what little I've played of 2e and heard of earlier editions, PCs at the same level were even more powerful, since they tended to be able to defeat comparatively greater threats (a 13th lvl fighter in 2e could take apart a bunch of fire giants, whereas one in 3e will have some problems with them). D&D, in my estimation, does superheroes and myth much better than it does traditional fantasy/adventure stories. And I think that's a good thing. Many others may of course disagree.


----------



## gizmo33

shilsen said:
			
		

> since in D&D you're as functional with 1 hp as you are with 100 hp when it comes to being able to swing a sword or sling a spell.




There's an important part of the interpretation here that you're not stating.  The idea that you are agile and rested enough to not be killed by the swing of a longsword is what having lots of hitpoints represents.  You, therefore, *aren't* as functional from this perspective when you're at few hitpoints because you can't protect yourself from those single sword swings anymore.  Sure, you were probably talking about the absence of modifiers to hit, or spell failure, or something like that - but the point and spirit of the hitpoint rules is what I've said above and I think it contradicts the spirit of what you're suggesting.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> What the PCs in my current game can do at 13th lvl is very clearly in the same category as one finds in mythic heroes.




The truth or falsehood of this doesn't quite jump out at me.  IMO:  Cuchulainn > Conan > Finn MacCumhal.  Conan = Lancelot/Tristan > Aragorn.  Chuchulainn > Achilles. These comparisons are based on my hazy recollection of how these characters performed relative to the other warriors in mass combat situations.  I actually can't think of examples besides the Tain from Irish myth that depict mass battle situations.  So Finn probably doesn't belong on an apples-to-apples comparison.

Basically when you say "mythic" I think of that word as covering much more than Cuchulainn, whom I find to be at an extreme scale of power for a myth.  (One of the problems could be that the story of Cuchulainn could have been that of a god cast into the form of a mortal by Christian writers, though he's much more substantial then the other characters more readily identified as gods.  I suppose such nuances are better left to persons not relying on English translations which may lose some details.)

I'm ok with mythic as a characterization of high level DnD heroes, but that's a pretty broad range of possible meanings in terms of power level.


----------



## pemerton

pemerton said:
			
		

> Is there are reason you are not considering the possibility that per-day may be an obstacle to play which relies on other thresholds of significance, or which is not prudent, and that per-encounter might eliminate this obstacle?





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Give me an example of a theshold of significance that per-day is an obstacle to.  I note that by effectively using lower CR encounters (4 goblins vs 10th level fighter), per-day can actually _model_ per encounter to some degree.



Here are three examples - not the only ones that could be given, but ones that illustrate 3 different alternative thresholds of significance:

*If the threshold of significance is _tactical excitement_, to be generated by encounters that generate the threat but not (if well-played) the reality of long-term resource depletion, per-day gets in the way - because it puts a limit on the number of such encounters that can occur without rest being required.

*If the threshold of significance is _enjoyable plot development_, and the plot involves first beating the leader in a dramatic battle, then cleaning up the minions as part of the denoument and "victory parade" process, per-day gets in the way - because after the big fight there are not sufficient resources available for the wind-down fights.

*If the threshold of significance is _thematic exploration_, per-day can get in the way because it imposes a non-thematically generated constraint on the sequencing of encounters and the relation to the passage of gametime - suppose, for example, after a sequence of battles thematic coherence or resolution requires a further encounter to take place (for examle, a PC finally catches a glimpse of her father's killer, and want to pursue the murderer down the corridor), per-day can make this effectively impossible.

All of these examples might illustrate a more general point (I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think it's there): per-day is an obstacle to the dynamic evolution of the sequence of encounters over the course of play, if that dynamic evolution is to be guided by non-resource-management considerations.


----------



## Geron Raveneye

pemerton said:
			
		

> *If the threshold of significance is _tactical excitement_, to be generated by encounters that generate the threat but not (if well-played) the reality of long-term resource depletion, per-day gets in the way - because it puts a limit on the number of such encounters that can occur without rest being required.




Yep, but that sounds like taking a shower would be a bad idea if the point was getting clean _without _ getting wet. If the fun depends on no resource-attrition to be happening from the encounters, a per-day set of abilities of course won't work.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> *If the threshold of significance is _enjoyable plot development_, and the plot involves first beating the leader in a dramatic battle, then cleaning up the minions as part of the denoument and "victory parade" process, per-day gets in the way - because after the big fight there are not sufficient resources available for the wind-down fights.




Depends on how powerful those "minions" are, doesn't it?  



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> *If the threshold of significance is _thematic exploration_, per-day can get in the way because it imposes a non-thematically generated constraint on the sequencing of encounters and the relation to the passage of gametime - suppose, for example, after a sequence of battles thematic coherence or resolution requires a further encounter to take place (for examle, a PC finally catches a glimpse of her father's killer, and want to pursue the murderer down the corridor), per-day can make this effectively impossible.




You mean players who actually care enough about their character's backstory that they might want to pursue that murderer down a corridor...only to turn back and go "Aw heck, I can't follow him now, I'm all out of spells"?   



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> All of these examples might illustrate a more general point (I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think it's there): per-day is an obstacle to the dynamic evolution of the sequence of encounters over the course of play, if that dynamic evolution is to be guided by non-resource-management considerations.




Only if you let the dynamic evolution of the whole game be guided by meta-game considerations on all sides (DM and players) instead of character motivations and circumstance (in other words, if you let your roleplaying get trumped by tactical and mechanical points).


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There are pages of elaboration available in this thread.



Not of the particular point you made, namely, that the _threat_ of mechanical significance (ie resource addition or depletion) is worse than the actuality of mechanical significance.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This assumes that the players, being threatened by an encounter that they are not confident that they can win using per-encounter resources will wait to use per-day resources until they know that they have won, or that they are dead.
> 
> This is a very good example of a win/lose encounter, and prudent play would suggest (if you can rest to regain your per-encounter abilities thereafter) that you use whatever big guns you have, and then rest.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I feel at this point that there is, simply put, no burden of proof that will satisfy.



With respect, it is nothing to do with burden of proof. It is to do with a detaild analysis of the claims being made, and their plausibility.

For example: it does not follow, from the fact that the players are not confident _in any given round_ that they will win using per-encounter resources, that they will switch to per-day resources. This depends entirely on what the per-day resources are.

Suppose, for example, that a Figher's main per-day resource is a "second wind", which allows her to regain all her lost hit points via a swift action. Suppose also that a Fighter has an at-will ability, to use a swift action to add her level to her damage on a successful hit. Then as long as the player believes that the PC has enough hits left to survive another round's combat, and given that it is crucial to deliver as much damage per round as possible, that player will not use the "second wind". It is quite conceivable that this state of affairs can continue all the way to the end of the combat. What we then have is an exciting combat, which was significant because meaningful choices about resource deployment had to be made in every round, but no per-day resource was consumed.

Similar sorts of possibilities exist for a Wizard. Suppose the per-day resource is teleport, for example: then, until the Fighter has used her "second wind", the Wizard does not have to open the escape hatch because victory is still posible. But the Wizards still knows that this might be needed. And suppose, furthermore, that the teleport can be used as an immediate action - in any given round, the Wizard's player has to decide whether to use a swift action on his turn, thus ruling out the possibility of an immediate action until his next turn but making it less likely that it will be needed, because less likely that the Fighter will have to use her second wind (I may have mucked up the action sequencing rules there, but I think the general point still makes sense).

Or, suppose that the Wizard's per-day resource is a big area attack spell. Using this effectively requires the Fighter and Rogue to withdraw from the combat, thus (let's say) exposing the Wizard herself to attack. In any given round it may not make the most tactical sense to deploy that spell,  because the martial characters might be (barely) holding their own, and the Cleric still has a per-day "heal all allies" ability left. But the Wizard, while making non-per-day attacks, might be manoeuvring into a position where, if the big gun does have to be used, it effectiveness will be maximised, the risk to him will be minimised and the possibility of safe withdrawal by the martial characters will be achieved.

What all of these examples have in common is (i) that the acquisition of relevant infomration about the encounter by the players is dynamic - in the sense that it occurs over time during the encounter - and (ii) that the interaction of each PC's abilities, and of the abilities of each with the abilities of the others, means that knowledge of a genuine risk to the party does not make the deployment of per-day resources the automatic solution.

It is because of these sorts of possibilities, which seem very close to what the designers are suggesting through their various posts and leaked titbits, that I don't understand why you say that the threat of mechanical signficance can not produce meaningful play that does not deplete resources.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Obviously not, or I wouldn't have written so many pages analyzing why the per-encounter/per-day resource scheme was unlikely, by itself, to resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day.




I disagree.

One of the major contributing factors to the short adventuring day is that, for some classes, the "power curve" is too steep (I've posted some notional charts to this effect in this or another thread, and will drag them out again if necessary).

The power of the wizard and the cleric is almost entirely based on their per-day resources (and, specifically, their top-end resources).  The cleric is a little better off here because, once he's out of spells, he's still got a d8 HD, medium BAB, and armor.

There are, thus, two competing goals: 1) have on-hand the resources to affect an encounter at the right moment, and 2) meaningfully affect each encounter.   I'm fairly certain that saying, for those players who choose to play wizard characters, "meaningfully affect each encounter" usually involves some variation on "cast spells to meaningfully affect each encounter."  Otherwise, they'd be playing a different sort of character.

If you are expending your resources to affect the game environment, you are moving down that power curve.  As I mentioned previously (and with which I don't think you disagree), a wizard spends his per-day resources faster than, say, a fighter (whose only per-day resources are his hit points and, by extension, the cleric's spells).  Accordingly, at the end of a combat in which both parties have expended a certain percentage of per-day resources, the wizard and cleric are comparatively worse off than the fighter.

In other words, the wizards' and clerics' ability to meaningfully impact the next encounter utilizing their own particular idiom is diminished, while the fighter's is generally not.

Assuming the party is friendly towards each other, and that there is no particular time pressure preventing it, you are going to reach the point at which the wizards' and clerics' lack of resources causes everyone to stop for the day.  And, because of these classes' near total reliance on per-day resources, that will happen after comparatively few actual rounds of expending those resources (or, in other words, a wizard can "go nova" and expend the vast majority of per-day resources over the course of 10 rounds of combat or so).

Therefore, one can logically conclude that one of the driving factors of the short adventuring day is not "We're all hosed an need to rest," but "I, the wizard, can only do cool things for a short period of time before I have to rest for a long period of time."

After that short period of time, the wizard's character is at "40%" of max power, and the fighter's character is still at "90%" power.  The wizard crashes much, much faster than the figher.

Per-Encounter resources change that paradigm because the wizard no longer crashes as quickly.  There is no longer a hard limit on the number of rounds in which the wizard can do cool things before resting for a long time; instead, there's a limit on the number of cool things you can do before resting for a short time.

It changes the 9:00-9:15 adventuring day into the 9:00-9:10, 9:45-10:15, 10:20-11:35, etc., adventuring day.

EDIT:

Now, if you want to argue that changing to a per-encounter scheme *alone* will not *mandate* the removal the 9:00-9:15 adventuring day, I'll probably agree with you.  What it will do, however, by softening the power curve, is remove one of the major impediments to the 9:00-5:00 adventuring day.


----------



## gizmo33

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The power of the wizard and the cleric is almost entirely based on their per-day resources (and, specifically, their top-end resources).  The cleric is a little better off here because, once he's out of spells, he's still got a d8 HD, medium BAB, and armor.




I agree that wizards (and maybe clerics, though they do have some fighting capability, depends on how their spells compliment that) are too dependant on daily resources.  I have some reservations about the probable (hopefully slight) increase in what a "significant" encounter will mean in such a system, but I think the benefits will be worth it.  Is there anyone that thinks that increasing a wizards per-encounter abilities is a bad thing?  (and probably scaling down their daily abilities so that the nova thing isn't as much of a problem)


----------



## pemerton

pemerton said:
			
		

> If the threshold of significance is tactical excitement, to be generated by encounters that generate the threat but not (if well-played) the reality of long-term resource depletion





			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Yep, but that sounds like taking a shower would be a bad idea if the point was getting clean _without _ getting wet. If the fun depends on no resource-attrition to be happening from the encounters, a per-day set of abilities of course won't work.



I was asked to provide an example of a threshold of significance to which solely per-day resources are an obstacle. You seem to be agreeing that this is such an example.

I should add, however, that in the example the fun depends not upon an absence of resource attrition, but upon the threat of resource attrition. The point is that, if the only resources available are per-day, then any encounter that threatens attrition will actually lead to attrition, thus putting a cap per day on such encounters. But if per-encounter resources are also available, then there can be, in a given day, any number of such encounters, because the threat of attrition need not produce the reality thereof.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> *If the threshold of significance is enjoyable plot development, and the plot involves first beating the leader in a dramatic battle, then cleaning up the minions as part of the denoument and "victory parade" process





			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Depends on how powerful those "minions" are, doesn't it?



Yes. Obviously, given that it is an example of a threshold of significance to which purely per-day resources are an obstacle, my example has in mind minions that cannot be tackled if the bulk of a party's resources have been deployed in the first battle.

Many other posters have also given this is an example, making me think that it is one common situation in which purely per-day resources impede a particular approach to play.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> *If the threshold of significance is thematic exploration, per-day can get in the way because it imposes a non-thematically generated constraint on the sequencing of encounters and the relation to the passage of gametime - suppose, for example, after a sequence of battles thematic coherence or resolution requires a further encounter to take place (for examle, a PC finally catches a glimpse of her father's killer, and want to pursue the murderer down the corridor), per-day can make this effectively impossible.





			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> You mean players who actually care enough about their character's backstory that they might want to pursue that murderer down a corridor...only to turn back and go "Aw heck, I can't follow him now, I'm all out of spells"?



Suppose that the murderer is a 3rd level Fighter, and the PC a 5th level Wizard who is out of spells. Then following the murderer is almost certain death for the Wizard. I don't think it is a strength of an RPG's mechanics that it forces a player to choose between abandoning the exploration of theme, or having the vehicle through which she participates in the game (ie her PC) killed off. A system which also has per-encounter resources does not force the same choice. That is, such an alternative system would not place the same obstacles in the way of the thematic threshold of significance.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> All of these examples might illustrate a more general point (I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think it's there): per-day is an obstacle to the dynamic evolution of the sequence of encounters over the course of play, if that dynamic evolution is to be guided by non-resource-management considerations.





			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Only if you let the dynamic evolution of the whole game be guided by meta-game considerations on all sides (DM and players) instead of character motivations and circumstance (in other words, if you let your roleplaying get trumped by tactical and mechanical points).



Here is an alternative rendering of your sentence:

"Only if you let the dynamic evolution of the whole GAME be guided by the RULES and by the METAGAME PRIORITIES of the players of that game."​
You seem to think that this is a bad thing, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

I was asked to provide examples where purely per-day resources place a burden on various thresholds of significance (= metagame priorities). I did so. As far as I can tell, you don't really dispute that I did so. If you are now going to say that those metagame priorities are misguided, or alternatively that there is something wrong with wanting rules to support those metagame priorities (in the same sort of way that per-day resources support the metagame priority of operational play), what is your argument?

To be frank, I can't imagine what that argument would look like. If I want to play a GAME that involves lots of exciting encounters, whose excitement depends upon the threat, but not necessarily the actuality, of resource depletion, why shouldn't I? If I want to play a GAME where I can explore different sorts of plots, and different sorts of themes, without having to sacrifice my PC to do so, why shouldn't I? What is the virtue in a set of rules that do not support the gaming priorities of the game's participants?


----------



## Jackelope King

pemerton said:
			
		

> <snip>



Very well-said.


----------



## Geron Raveneye

pemerton said:
			
		

> Here is an alternative rendering of your sentence:
> 
> "Only if you let the dynamic evolution of the whole GAME be guided by the RULES and by the METAGAME PRIORITIES of the players of that game."​
> You seem to think that this is a bad thing, but I don't see anything wrong with it.




Nothing bad for you if you prefer it that way. But since we're here to discuss from our respective points of view, and since from my point of view that kind of roleplaying is like building a house from the roof down instead from the foundations up, it's why I may sound like it's a "bad thing" to me.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I was asked to provide examples where purely per-day resources place a burden on various thresholds of significance (= metagame priorities). I did so. As far as I can tell, you don't really dispute that I did so.




Nope, no dispute here from me. Just was trying to get a grip on those examples you provided, and the underlying reasoning.  



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> If you are now going to say that those metagame priorities are misguided, or alternatively that there is something wrong with wanting rules to support those metagame priorities (in the same sort of way that per-day resources support the metagame priority of operational play), what is your argument?




Basically, and that covers both sides, the whole argument that is threaded throughout this thread is more concerned with metagame effects on the game, the concern that metagame thinking can cause weird behaviour in characters because the players treat them like playing pieces on a Monopoly board with extended abilities, and the effect the differences in frequency those abilities might have in 4E metagame thinking and hence on the weird behaviour of the characters.

The point to me, and it's mixed in different current threads, like the "Rules first, roleplaying second" one here, or the "Thespian acting vs. Immersion" thread over in General, is that the *rules* and the metagame effects they have seem to be of a bigger importance for many posters here than the fact that people might want to play a _character_ with a personality, goals, and a certain behaviour that stems from all that.

And I'm not talking about trying to play amateur thespian on the table, or screwing up the game with the sole excuse that "it was what my character would have done". Also, I'm aware that D&D has its roots in wargaming, but that doesn't mean roleplaying considerations should be totally left out of the discussion just because it can't be put into numbers. That's why I was a bit confused by your 3rd example...simply because it sounds, to me, like a paper tiger, something that looks possible on paper, looking at the possible effect of metagame thoughts on character behaviour, but that I'm pretty sure wouldn't pop up with most of my players, and not with myself either (that goes for this weird and in my experience highly hypothetical 9 - 9.05 phenomenon, too). Even assuming I'm a 5th level wizard, and the murderer of my father is a 3rd level fighter, and I'm all out of spells...the question *for me* is more if not following because I'm out of spells is in line with the character personality.

Frankly, rules (even in D&D) are a frame, or a skeleton. They are not what drive the in-game decisions, but what makes the consequences of those decisions possible. They are what should step in the background, and let the game proceed forward. That's something that for some reason gets pushed aside in most of these discussions, handwaved away as "individual playstyle" and apparently not important enough to be viewed as part of either problem or solution.



> To be frank, I can't imagine what that argument would look like. If I want to play a GAME that involves lots of exciting encounters, whose excitement depends upon the threat, but not necessarily the actuality, of resource depletion, why shouldn't I? If I want to play a GAME where I can explore different sorts of plots, and different sorts of themes, without having to sacrifice my PC to do so, why shouldn't I? What is the virtue in a set of rules that do not support the gaming priorities of the game's participants?




No reason why you shouldn't. The question is if a game should derive its rules by following the gaming priorities of those who potentially might play it, or if it should derive its rules from what it is supposed to do by design, and then get chosen by players because it supports their specific preferences. But that cannot be resolved, otherwise we'd not have posts that either go "If you don't like the new edition, nobody forces you to play it, your old edition won't go up in flames" or "If you don't like the old edition, nobody forces you to play it, there is tons of games out there that support your wishes much better".

Bottomline is, we all love D&D and would like it to support "our" style of playing, at least, which won't work, because one game can't be 4 million different rulesets at the same time. Gah, and now you got me rambling, posting at 1 AM is simply a bad idea. I just want to say that just because some rule (or rules change) might or might not have a certain effect on the game, it doesn't mean that this effect can be countered by nothing else but rules either, and it would be more fruitful to compare metagame issues alongside with roleplaying experiences, instead of handwaving those out of the picture with an "everybody here knows how to roleplay".


----------



## Reynard

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Bottomline is, we all love D&D and would like it to support "our" style of playing, at least, which won't work, because one game can't be 4 million different rulesets at the same time.




This is why modularity is the key to D&D's success, I think.  While dealing with rules bloat issues of 3.5, with new ideas and differing subsystems spread across multiple books, can be irrittating, it allows for the game to be played in a lot of different ways, yet still "by the book".  Fundamental issues like resource management can be chosen by the individual group, not be dictated by the rule book from the word "go" just because it appears as though a certain majority of the fanbase prefers it that way.


----------



## pemerton

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Very well-said.



Thanks



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Nothing bad for you if you prefer it that way. But since we're here to discuss from our respective points of view, and since from my point of view that kind of roleplaying is like building a house from the roof down instead from the foundations up, it's why I may sound like it's a "bad thing" to me.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Basically, and that covers both sides, the whole argument that is threaded throughout this thread is more concerned with metagame effects on the game, the concern that metagame thinking can cause weird behaviour in characters because the players treat them like playing pieces on a Monopoly board with extended abilities, and the effect the differences in frequency those abilities might have in 4E metagame thinking and hence on the weird behaviour of the characters.
> 
> The point to me, and it's mixed in different current threads, like the "Rules first, roleplaying second" one here, or the "Thespian acting vs. Immersion" thread over in General, is that the *rules* and the metagame effects they have seem to be of a bigger importance for many posters here than the fact that people might want to play a _character_ with a personality, goals, and a certain behaviour that stems from all that.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Frankly, rules (even in D&D) are a frame, or a skeleton. They are not what drive the in-game decisions, but what makes the consequences of those decisions possible. They are what should step in the background, and let the game proceed forward. That's something that for some reason gets pushed aside in most of these discussions, handwaved away as "individual playstyle" and apparently not important enough to be viewed as part of either problem or solution.



I guess I just don't agree that the rules "step into the background". They make certain roleplaying choices more or less viable, and for those who want to roleplay a certain way, but find the rules favour a different way, the rules will be experienced as very much in the foreground.

It is possible to play a character in a way that pushes against the rules. But in most cases I believe it is even more fun to find that the rules help one play the character one wants.

Raven Crowking, either on this or the now-closed "Unfun" thread (I think) said that he liked the idea that the Wizard class, because of its resource-management considerations, required a different playstyle from the Fighter. I think he is certainly correct with respect to 1st ed, and I agree with Monte Cook's comments on the effect of the 3E Wizard on playstle.

A consequence of this is that, if one wants to play a magic-wielding character in a manner closer to that of a classic D&D Fighter, or in some different fashion again, then different mechanics will help.



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> That's why I was a bit confused by your 3rd example...simply because it sounds, to me, like a paper tiger, something that looks possible on paper, looking at the possible effect of metagame thoughts on character behaviour, but that I'm pretty sure wouldn't pop up with most of my players, and not with myself either (that goes for this weird and in my experience highly hypothetical 9 - 9.05 phenomenon, too). Even assuming I'm a 5th level wizard, and the murderer of my father is a 3rd level fighter, and I'm all out of spells...the question *for me* is more if not following because I'm out of spells is in line with the character personality.



One way to play is that you describe - reconciling the tactical and resource issue with the emotional issue for the PC by deriving a response _within_ the framework of the character's personality.

But that the choice has that character is itself an artifact of the D&D rules. A different ruleset would mean that the trade-off would not have to be made. The player could then choose how her PC responds _purely_ as an issue of thematic appropriateness.

Another way of looking at it is this: a system of solely per-day resources puts pressure on Wizard PCs to have a certain cynical, detatched outlook, because for much of the time they are incapable of acting decisively on the world (being out of spells). This might be good for some games, but it is not necessarily good for all games.

To conclude this post, I don't necessarily think that 4e ought to go one way, or another, on resource management. But I certainly continue to think that going one way, or another, is making a definite choice as to which playstyles are supported. Contrary to some posters, I don't think reducing the importance of per-day resources would simply be shafting operational play for no benefit. And I think it could help address the 15-minute adventuring day.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Another thought. I've not been following the thread so apologies if it's already been mentioned.

Per day abilities are very bad at giving a sense of rising tension and 'pulling out the big guns' on special occasions. They don't work when there's only one fight a day as players can pull out the big guns all the time, which feels wrong.

A much better way of doing it is powers or items that work once only over a character's lifetime. These are very rare in D&D at present, potions and scrolls are mostly too weak to count, though there are some good ones, such as the dragon breath elixirs, in MIC. Another example is the retributive strike of a staff of power. D&D should have a lot more stuff like this, and fewer permanent items.

I've always liked these sort of pull out all the stops powers. Another way to do it would be abilities which have a risk of permanent harm up to and including irrevocable death.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> *If the threshold of significance is _tactical excitement_, to be generated by encounters that generate the threat but not (if well-played) the reality of long-term resource depletion, per-day gets in the way - because it puts a limit on the number of such encounters that can occur without rest being required.




*  The treasure from each encounter includes scrolls, healing potions, etc., that effectively returns the party to status quo after each encounter.

*  No encounter can generate the threat of long-term resource depletion, without long-term resource depletion being part of the mechanical setup of the game.

*  If tactical significance can exist without per-day resources, surely encounters can be created that are tactically significant without requiring per-day resourced if they exist.



> *If the threshold of significance is _enjoyable plot development_, and the plot involves first beating the leader in a dramatic battle, then cleaning up the minions as part of the denoument and "victory parade" process, per-day gets in the way - because after the big fight there are not sufficient resources available for the wind-down fights.




*  The treasure from the leader fight includes scrolls, healing potions, etc., that effectively returns the party to status quo for mop up.



> *If the threshold of significance is _thematic exploration_, per-day can get in the way because it imposes a non-thematically generated constraint on the sequencing of encounters and the relation to the passage of gametime - suppose, for example, after a sequence of battles thematic coherence or resolution requires a further encounter to take place (for examle, a PC finally catches a glimpse of her father's killer, and want to pursue the murderer down the corridor), per-day can make this effectively impossible.




*  This is an example of poor encounter generation, if anything, that requires resources to exist that either do no inherently exist or are not supplied.

All of your examples seem to be nothing more than "What if we want/need one more encounter, and our resources are depleted?" and the answer is almost always, "Design your encounters to include the possibility of gaining those needed resources."  This is pretty simple, and has been done by many, many DMs for decades.

I don't know about you, but I have no difficulty with tactical excitement, thematic exploration, or enjoyable plot development using a system that involves per-day resource attrition.  I have 27 years of experience that tells me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that per-day resource attrition doesn't get in the way of any of these things, within the hands of an even halfway competent DM.

YMMV.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> Not of the particular point you made, namely, that the _threat_ of mechanical significance (ie resource addition or depletion) is worse than the actuality of mechanical significance.




Um......No.  That is not a point that I made.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Win/lose encounters (in this case, those with the threat of mechanical significance, where anly loss of mechanical resources is perforce a significant one) make the problem worse, not better.




Contextually, "the problem" referred to the 9-9:15 adventuring day.

How, exactly, do you turn this into "the _threat_ of mechanical significance (ie resource addition or depletion) is worse than the actuality of mechanical significance"?  Because, if you are going to do "a detaild analysis of the claims being made, and their plausibility" you had better start with the claims actually being made.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I disagree.




I am answering a question about whether or not I believe the opposite of the point I have been making.  I say, "obviously not or I'd not have been writing about this for so long", and _that_ is what you quote to disagree with?!?


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> I was asked to provide an example of a threshold of significance to which solely per-day resources are an obstacle.




Yes, but that isn't what you did.

What you did was select three thresholds of significance to which per-day resources are _not_, in any general sense, an obstacle, and then demonstrated that if you work at it you can make running out of resources into a problem using those thresholds.

This is not the same thing.

If per-day resources are an obstacle to a ToS, you shouldn't have to contrive situations to make resources a problem.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, but that isn't what you did.
> 
> What you did was select three thresholds of significance to which per-day resources are _not_, in any general sense, an obstacle, and then demonstrated that if you work at it you can make running out of resources into a problem using those thresholds.
> 
> This is not the same thing.
> 
> If per-day resources are an obstacle to a ToS, you shouldn't have to contrive situations to make resources a problem.
> 
> 
> RC



If no actual obstacles were posted in pemerton's statements, then why did you feel compelled to post the work-arounds in you posted #1010 with the encounters providing you with the resources needed to overcome attrition and sally forth?

Or are these actually obstacles, but ones that "halfway competent DM"s can and should know how to get around anyway, making revising them unnecessary?


----------



## IanArgent

I'm going to add my personal hate-on here for _being required_ as a DM to put certain items in treasure - which is what Raven Crowking suggests I do to work around the limitations of per-day resource management.

The system should _work_ with no access to one-shot items. Period. Every class should be able to use their "core competency"  roles/abilities, in every encounter, with minimal specific equipment. The fighter can, by and large, pick up any random sword and use his _basic_ class features/abilities with it. Likewise the rogue (though he needs a somewhat more specific toolkit if he has to open locks).

Hence, the requirement that all classes work their resource management for their primary roles more or less the same.

It is perfectly possible, with little or no prep, to run an adventure that is fun, challenging, and has encounters than run the gamut from easy to OMGWFTBBQ, with every variation between, in a system with NO per-day resource management. Theoretically, in Shadowrun, ever encounter the PCs are fresh as daisies in; there is very little way to ablate the PCs' capabilities by throwing encounters at them. I did this, fr 7 years, in a running campaign that had anywhere from 2-12 PCs at any one session (SR is easier to deal with missing characters, I will admit), from my GM experience being very low (Essentially, SR was the first game I ever ran, and I had very little RPG experience in general to bring to the table; I had never _played_ SR before running it) to "I don't have to crack a book to run this game, and my players don't have to crack one while I'm running, because I have internalized the system". (I'm nowhere near that level with D&D right now, incidentally; mostly because the rules are too complicated and too beholden to the sacred cows).

In short, resource management above the at-will level is _unnecessary_ for game design, if the abilities are balanced.

Now, I'm not pushing for purely at-will resources in D&D - I believe there is a place for the per-encounter and per-day abilities in D&D. I believe that the "meat and potatoes" of _any_ characters role should be at-will however; just as the fighter's attack is at-will. Then their "advanced" abilities, (say Stunning Fist for the monk, and yes, I know that's technically per-day right now) should be per-encounter, and finally the "big guns" (fireball, etc) should be per-day. I also believe that every class should have roughly comparable abilities to affect a combat when used with the same level of player skill (but not the same ability with different names) at each level. Balance at each level, balance for each class. Otherwise you're either waiting to get cool, or holding the coats of the characters who got cool.

I may be looking for something in a gaming system that you're not. That's fine. But what I'm looking for is what will allow the 6 teens in the basement with a brand new set of the core rules and no experience whatsoever in the game to sit down with paper, pencil, and dice, and have fun. Because without those 6 teens in a basement, the hobby dies. Complicated resource management is Not Fun to the inexperienced gamer.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Um......No.  That is not a point that I made.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Contextually, "the problem" referred to the 9-9:15 adventuring day.
> 
> How, exactly, do you turn this into "the _threat_ of mechanical significance (ie resource addition or depletion) is worse than the actuality of mechanical significance"?  Because, if you are going to do "a detaild analysis of the claims being made, and their plausibility" you had better start with the claims actually being made.



In my post #874, I suggested that if it is the threat, but not the actuality, of mechanical significance (in your sense) that is at stake, then a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources might not (as you had concluded) fail to be a solution to the 15 minute adventuring day.

You replied, at post #886, that "Win/lose encounters (in this case, those with the threat of mechanical significance, where anly loss of mechanical resources is perforce a significant one) make the problem worse, not better."

I asked you why you think that the threat makes things worse than the actuality - which seemed to be the implication of your sentence in quotation marks above. Apparently I've misunderstood you - it seems that you do not draw any distinction between an encounter which threatens long term resource depletion, and one which actually produces long term resource depletion. As my examples have tried to demonstrate, and as other posters have asserted, (i) I think that distinction is crucial if per-encounter abilities are to change the dynamics of play for many groups, and (ii) I think the distinction is a real one, and therefore has a real chance of changing the dynamics of play for many groups, away from the 15 minute adventuring day



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No encounter can generate the threat of long-term resource depletion, without long-term resource depletion being part of the mechanical setup of the game.



That seems fairly obvious. I thought it was understood by all the participants in this conversation that what 4e will involve is a mix of per-day and per-encounter resources. I thought that you were contending that this will not solve the 15 minute problem, because an encounter in which long term (ie per day) resources are not consumed will be insignicant. I have suggested that the _threat_ of such consumption may be sufficient to generate signficance of an interesting tactical sort, and have posted an imagined scenario (at #1001) which tries to show how this sort of tactical interest can be generated without it always being rational simply to (as you put it) "use whatever big guns you have" first.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If tactical significance can exist without per-day resources, surely encounters can be created that are tactically significant without requiring per-day resourced if they exist.



Perhaps. The example I gave in post #1001 depended upon the game containing per-encounter resources. In core rules 3.5 the only way I could see to set up the same sort of tactical options would be for a spell-casting character, with the choice being "which spell to cast". And currently, as all spells are per-day, there is no way to set up those sorts of choices without actually depeleting long term resources.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *  The treasure from each encounter includes scrolls, healing potions, etc., that effectively returns the party to status quo after each encounter.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> *  The treasure from the leader fight includes scrolls, healing potions, etc., that effectively returns the party to status quo for mop up.



That is one way to do it. Some players (and GMs) might prefer an approach to play where the further encounter (be it the mop up, or whatever else) can happen before the looting (and identifying of said loot), or even where there is no looting.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is an example of poor encounter generation, if anything, that requires resources to exist that either do no inherently exist or are not supplied.



Your point seems to be that "Given D&D as it is, this is poor encounter design." Sure, but another way of putting that point is "Given D&D as it is, this sequence of encounters can't really be run effectively." And another way of putting _this_ is that "D&D as it is, with purely per-day resources, poses an obstacle to running certain sequences of enounters with certain (non-mechanical) thresholds of signficance." Which is what I set out to show. So I don't really see why you think I haven't shown it.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> All of your examples seem to be nothing more than "What if we want/need one more encounter, and our resources are depleted?"



That's probably why I remarked at post #999 that "All of these examples might illustrate a more general point (I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think it's there): per-day is an obstacle to the dynamic evolution of the sequence of encounters over the course of play, if that dynamic evolution is to be guided by non-resource-management considerations."



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> the answer is almost always, "Design your encounters to include the possibility of gaining those needed resources."  This is pretty simple, and has been done by many, many DMs for decades.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I have no difficulty with tactical excitement, thematic exploration, or enjoyable plot development using a system that involves per-day resource attrition.  I have 27 years of experience that tells me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that per-day resource attrition doesn't get in the way of any of these things, within the hands of an even halfway competent DM.



And other posters have experienced the need to take acount of resource attrition in the design of their encounters, when what they are really interested in is not operational play but purely encounter-leve tactical excitement, or plot development, or thematic play, or even just plain-old buttkicking. They therefore have found this need to be a burden.

Nothing is going to be proved by assertions about what sort of play experience one prefers, or even by demonstrations that a certain set of mechanics can, in the right hands and wielded in the right manner, generate a certain sort of play experience. The question is whether D&D's attrition mechanics can, for some players in some situations, get in the way of other metagame goals. Given that we both agree that they put constraints on encounter design that _have no connection to those non-operational metagame goals_ we seem to be in agreement on this fundamental point.

The question for the 4e designers is, "Is it worth ditching operational play as a major part of the play experience, so as to increase the scope for a wide variety of play involving other metagame priorities?" From the information that is coming out I believe that they have already answered the question in the affirmative. Will this change in direction (which merely continues a trend established in 3E) irreparably harm D&D as a game? I don't believe so. You seem to believe that it will. I'm not sure how that sort of disagreement can be resolved.

As to the problem of the 15-minute adventuring day, I still remain satisfied that I have provided examples which show that your prediction that it will recur with a mix of per-day and per-encounter resources is doubtful, because that prediction rests on a false premise, namely, that an encounter can be of mechanical interest only if it _actually consumes_ per-day resources.


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> * No encounter can generate the threat of long-term resource depletion, without long-term resource depletion being part of the mechanical setup of the game.
> 
> * If tactical significance can exist without per-day resources, surely encounters can be created that are tactically significant without requiring per-day resourced if they exist.




Exactly - encounters do not need to "generate the threat of long-term resource depletion" to be fun, challenging, and tactically significant. Therefore you don't need per-day resources.

(Weren't you arguing _for_ primary per-day resource management. Or did I get turned around in the fog?


----------



## Reynard

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Exactly - encounters do not need to "generate the threat of long-term resource depletion" to be fun, challenging, and tactically significant. Therefore you don't need per-day resources.
> 
> (Weren't you arguing _for_ primary per-day resource management. Or did I get turned around in the fog?




No.  He is saying that those things are not dependent on one another.  in other words, with oer day resources, you get the added fun of worrying about longer term resource depletion.  Yet you still have fun, challenging and tactically significant encounters.  The per-encounter resource focus is not only unnecessary, it actually removes a fun, viable part of the game that has been there since the beginning and is a big part of what makes D&D, D&D.


----------



## pemerton

Reynard said:
			
		

> The per-encounter resource focus is not only unnecessary, it actually removes a fun, viable part of the game that has been there since the beginning and is a big part of what makes D&D, D&D.



And I don't dispute your second clause. As I've said repeatedly, there is a clear trendline from 1st ed through 3E that reduces the importance, in D&D, of operational play.

But I do claim that by getting rid of the operational dynamics of the game, _more room_ is openend up for alternative metagame priorities. The current overwhelming importance of per-day resources for spell-users, and therefore for a good chunk of party play, is an obstacle to the flexibility of encounter design that in many cases will better suit those alternative priorities.

There is a _competition_ here - the rules cannot be all things to all playstyles. WoTC seems to have a fairly clear idea of the sort of playstyle it wants to support, and this is not operational play.


----------



## IanArgent

Reynard said:
			
		

> No.  He is saying that those things are not dependent on one another.  in other words, with oer day resources, you get the added fun of worrying about longer term resource depletion.  Yet you still have fun, challenging and tactically significant encounters.  The per-encounter resource focus is not only unnecessary, it actually removes a fun, viable part of the game that has been there since the beginning and is a big part of what makes D&D, D&D.



Pemerton is calling it "operational" level resource management; and I can accept that. Tactics in this case is the management of the encounter, operational a series of encounters, and strategic would be across the adventure as a whole. (Grand Strategy would be the campaign, then). 

My complaint is that right now, only spellcasters have to play the operational-level resource management game, and that is their _entire_ game. Either get rid of it across the board, or make everyone play all levels of the resource management game. D&D 4 has chosen the second - everyone has to balance logistics of abilities tactics, operations, and strategy.

I disagree that making your entire character revolve around strictly operational-level ability management is fun, BTW. I hate it myself - which is why I've never played a single-class caster on the tabletop, and rarely on the computer D&D games (where it's easier to evade/avoid the logistical bottlenecks on caster abilities).

Spellcasters should _not_ require a degree of foresight beyond the encounter more than any other archetype; not in core D&D anyway. I think that's where the two sides are splitting - should it be harder to play a caster than a warrior or an expert? Should the caster have to worry _more_ about logistics than the warrior or expert?

4ed game design says no, apparently. "All classes will have a mix of per day, per encounter, and at-will abilities".

I'm going to turn the OP's question around - why shouldn't warriors have per encounter and per-day abilities?


----------



## AffableVagrant

Merlion said:
			
		

> One of the big ones being that for Wizards, magic is all the have, and in the current system they can run out of "prepared spells" and become very nearly useless in terms of combat etc.



Ugh!  The worst is at early levels where the Wizard blasts through his 2 or 3 magic missiles and has to call it a day.  

Imagine if the fighter had weak cardio and needed to take an 8-hour nap after every fight, "Oh man, I swung my sword like, _8 times_, I gotta get some shuteye!"  

Limiting it 'per encounter' is the perfect middle-ground, IMHO, and whoever thought of it should get a promotion.


----------



## AffableVagrant

Treebore said:
			
		

> I guess since I have always accepted the limitations, and planned accordingly, and appreciated the challenge of those plans and choices, I have always had versimilitude in my games.



Why accept the limitation of a low-level wizard only being able to cast magic missile twice a day?  How does that limitation present a challenge?  No amount of planning can undo the fact that you can only cast anything worthwhile a couple times a day.

What if a rogue needed to clean his tools for 8 hours after he disarmed a couple traps?  What if a fighter needed an 8-hour nap after he swung his sword a dozen times?  "Well guys, I stabbed a goblin.  Time to setup camp and get some shuteye."

Point is: Magic-users blast magic, that's why the player wanted to be a magic-user in the first place.  To say that they're folding to the challenge of resource management is totally beside the point.  Casters who can't cast instead pathetically shoot crossbow bolts while everyone else has the fun.


----------



## hong

AffableVagrant said:
			
		

> Why accept the limitation of a low-level wizard only being able to cast magic missile twice a day?  How does that limitation present a challenge?  No amount of planning can undo the fact that you can only cast anything worthwhile a couple times a day.




D&D is 25 years of accepting your limitations.


----------



## Baby Samurai

hong said:
			
		

> D&D is 25 years of accepting your limitations.




I thought it was 33 years of creating something wonderful amongst a group of people?


----------



## AffableVagrant

hong said:
			
		

> D&D is 25 years of accepting your limitations.




Ha ha ha... I can't argue with that.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> If no actual obstacles were posted in pemerton's statements, then why did you feel compelled to post the work-arounds in you posted #1010 with the encounters providing you with the resources needed to overcome attrition and sally forth?




There is a difference in posting obstacles, and in posting obstacles that are inherent with a given game set-up related to a given threshold of significance.  What I stated was that the per-day resource system did not inherently create an obstacle to any threshold of significance.  What pemerton did was attempt to contrive a situation in which an obstacle was created.  

Had I said, "There is no situation to which per-day resources create an obstacle" this would have proven me wrong; and very foolish as well, as it would indicate that I failed to understand the whole point of per-day resources.  

So, yes, you can use per-day resources to provide an obstacle, regardless of what threshold of significance you are using, but, as I demonstrated, it is even simpler if you so desire to avoid an actual obstacle from being created if that is what is desired.  IOW, "halfway competent DM"s do not artificially create obstacles without providing the means to get around them, if the goal in the game is to not have said obstacles.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> I'm going to add my personal hate-on here for _being required_ as a DM to put certain items in treasure - which is what Raven Crowking suggests I do to work around the limitations of per-day resource management.




Not at all.

What I intended to convey was that the limitations I replied to were contrivances, and easily done away with.

It is no different than saying, for example, that if you expect the party to fight a CR 40 opponent at level 1, you'd better take that into account during your design.  If you are contriving to create a problem when you do design an adventure; similarly, you must contrive to create potential solutions.

This has nothing to do with per-encounter or per-day resources.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> In my post #874, I suggested that if it is the threat, but not the actuality, of mechanical significance (in your sense) that is at stake, then a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources might not (as you had concluded) fail to be a solution to the 15 minute adventuring day.
> 
> You replied, at post #886, that "Win/lose encounters (in this case, those with the threat of mechanical significance, where anly loss of mechanical resources is perforce a significant one) make the problem worse, not better."




If you create win/lose encounters (where a win/lose encounter is defined as an encounter where there is a significant chance that the PCs could lose), and there is no reason not to, prudent play suggests expending all of your resources in each encounter.  This means that, after each encounter, you need to rest to regain those resources.

This makes the 15-minute adventuring day problem worse, not better.

If an encounter may be lost unless you use your significant resources, it would be foolish to claim that the PCs can know which way the dice will roll ahead of time.  A fight that can result, for example, in a TPK is only a _threat_ of a TPK until it is over.  It would be foolish players indeed to assume that "Hey, it hasn't happened yet, so let's not take prudent action!"  However, it would be equally foolish to assume that the "threat" of any encounter would continue to be significant if said threat was divorced from any actual consequence.

My position on this has been extremely clear, over pages of posts, although I understand that it is far easier to answer a strawman position than the one that I am taking.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Exactly - encounters do not need to "generate the threat of long-term resource depletion" to be fun, challenging, and tactically significant. Therefore you don't need per-day resources.
> 
> (Weren't you arguing _for_ primary per-day resource management. Or did I get turned around in the fog?




You didn't get turned around....this was an example of the doublethink in Pemerton's examples.

(1)  Your resources are almost depleted by fighting the BBEG.

(2)  You need resources to have tactically challenging fights.

(3)  Therefore mop-up cannot be tactically challenging.​
Coupled with

(1)  Tactically challenging encounters can exist without resource depletion.

(2)  Therefore you can have tactically challenging encounters that do not take resource attrition into account.​
Because in the first case, the mooks can be designed so as to not threaten remaining resources, either 

A.  Pemerton is wrong, and per-day resources are not an impediment in the situation described, or

B.  Pemerton is wrong, and resource attrition is required for tactically challenging encounters.

All of Pemerton's examples boil down to "Per-day resource attrition is bad because it means that I cannot have five sequential encounters that use 25% of a party's resources each without them regaining resources between those encounters."

My response is twofold:

(1)  The reason an encounter has to use 25% of the party's resources to seem significant is due to changes made between 2e and 3e.  Moving to per-encounter resources will make the percentage of resources needed for an encounter to seem challenging even higher.  I have given my reasoning for this on a point-by-point basis, which has not been answered in a way that demonstrates it wrong (IMHO, of course).

(2)  Sooner or later, the next phase will be "Per-encounter resource attrition is bad because it means that I cannot have encounters that use 125% of a party's resources."  Then the bar will be set at "at will" abilities.  And why not have every ability "at will"?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

And, for those of you who say "Resource attrition isn't important; we do without it fine in Game X" I'd like to ask, "What is the market share of Game X"?


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, for those of you who say "Resource attrition isn't important; we do without it fine in Game X" I'd like to ask, "What is the market share of Game X"?



A better question to ask would be 'What's the market share of a game than doesn't have the D&D brand name on the cover?"...

And isn't M&M 2e the current top selling supers game??


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I _like_ that PC choices have such an overall effect on their experience of the game.



Who doesn't? I believe you missed my point. 

Relying on operational level resource management depends on a relatively static set of challenges. The best example I can think of it an old-school dungeon crawl. Opponents rarely 'bust down the door' to threaten PC's. Most, if not all, of the danger is neatly compartmentalized, and gets encountered when the players decide to. 'Do we go one more room or not?'.  

The less predictable the threats are, the more difficult operational level resource management becomes. Since I like an relatively unpredictable threat environment (in my games, 'friend or foe' usually isn't determined until halfway through an encounter), a move towards per-encounter looks like it'll fit my style better.  



> I also have never seen evidenc that the attrition model forces a predictable encounter structure on adventure design.



I just don't understand this. How can a system based on every X numbered encounter being significant _not_ affect encounter design?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> How can a system based on every X numbered encounter being significant _not_ affect encounter design?





It cannot; but a resource-attrition system doesn't have to be based on X number of encounters, as 1e and 2e demonstrated amply.  

3.x is designed on an X number of encounters model because of changes made to the mechanical threshold of significance of encounters.  Because a wider range of encounters could either not affect the party, or would result in an instant TPK, the range of effects that an encounter could have on a party's resources shrank by a very large factor.  

One result of this was the need for the CR/EL system, to tell you what % of resources an encounter should use.  It also meant creating encounters that seemed more tactically challenging than were needed before, resulting in the high death rate in 3.X compared to earlier editions......while at the same time, the reduced need for cleverness to save resources and use them effectively made the game seem simpler.  Being able to die more easily due to bad luck on die rolls doesn't make a game more challenging.

This, in turn, created the "15 minute adventuring day" problem, where parties would use significant resources on every encounter, rest, rinse, and repeat.  It was the simplest way to hedge against bad die rolls.  The arrival of Action Points was another hedge against bad die rolls, an attempt to put a patch on the proble created when a reduced range of encounters became significant.

That the system is designed around X number of encounters is a relic of the same changes that led to the 9-9:15 adventuring day -- namely, numbers bloat.  In 1e, for example, there was a limit on AC.  No AC could be better than -10.  Using the THAC0 system, one can determine that AC -10 is equivilent to AC 30 now.  It is easy enough to imagine how capping AC at 30 would suddenly make many low-level threats significant at higher levels.

In addition, hit point acquisition was, while not capped, greatly reduced after name level.  Again, although monsters did less damage overall, they were doing that damage against a smaller number of hit points.  Couple this with the ability to hit more often, and it is easy to see how a 10th level fighter in 1e could see a threat as significant, where the same threat wouldn't be significant to a 6th level fighter in 3e.

So, the problem you ascribe to resource attrition isn't really a problem of that model.  It is, rather, a problem with the way resources are handled in 3e.  In fact, as one of the stated merits of 4e will be a flattening of the number-creep curve, and another is that a threat will remain viable over a larger range of levels, it seems that the designers are well aware of the source of this problem.

What I have yet to see, however, is any sign of a solution that seems reasonably likely to work.

YMMV......And time will tell.



RC


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, the problem you ascribe to resource attrition isn't really a problem of that model.



My main problem is that resource attrition is too dependent on static, player-revealed/initiated encounters. Can you address that? I am willing to admit that I might have missed something.

BTW, I realize this was the case in the earlier editions, and you're right, there were particulars in 1e and 2e that served to mitigate the problem, but that doesn't mean that resource attrition represents a universal model for arranging challenges in D&D. At least in terms if what I want out of the game.


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, for those of you who say "Resource attrition isn't important; we do without it fine in Game X" I'd like to ask, "What is the market share of Game X"?





In this case, that's like asking "how much market share does Apple have." Elegance alone doesn't buy market share.

At any rate, my arguement isn't so much that "if we don't have per-encounter abilities, our characters suck for much of the game" (though it is true - this isn't Sourcerer, where the most powerful magic is the magic you don't use), but rather, if you only have per-day resource management for the leaders and controllers, but not for the strikers and defenders; the second 2 roles end up not performing their roles in every battle. Each role should have something they can do in every battle that is related to their role. At the same time, their most powerful abilities should be limited in much the same fashion.

In the end, the answer to the 9:00 - 9:15 adventuring day is that once you have per-encounter and at-will abilities, you can say to your players "no, you don't get to rest to refresh your per-day abilities after going nova. You're still at 80% capability, so quit whining". Plus, if everyone has per-day abilities that they expend at roughly the same rate and have roughly the same effect on battles, then the party stops when everyone in the party feels they need to rest & recover, not because the caster is out of casting.

No matter how you slice it, with pure per-day resource management for some classes but not others, at some point the characters whose classes have pure per-day management sit the fight out as far as their class abilities go - either because they're out, or because they're saving for the next fight. Not fun.

Let's turn around the OPs question - should warriors have per-day abilities? Outside of minor abilities, they don't right now. Because that's the corollary to "every class has a mix of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities".


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, for those of you who say "Resource attrition isn't important; we do without it fine in Game X" I'd like to ask, "What is the market share of Game X"?



#2 only to _Dungeons & Dragons_, actually.

And if you look at the top 5 selling RPGs in the second quarter, only one of them features per-day resource attrition.

In fact, only D&D bucks this trend. Does D&D's place at the top have anything to do with the almost-universal correlation most of the public (gaming and non-gaming alike) has between D&D and RPG, or is entirely attributeable to D&D design? And assuming for a moment that the brand name has nothing to do with its market share and D&D really stands entirely on its own merrits in terms of design, is the per-day resource attrition system really such a cornerstone that people think of it right when they think of classes, levels, funny-sided dice, armor class, and hit points?

Sorry, RC. This was one of your weaker arguments in this thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> My main problem is that resource attrition is too dependent on static, player-revealed/initiated encounters. Can you address that? I am willing to admit that I might have missed something.





Are you seriously contending that, as a DM, you could not initiate encounters in _any_ edition of the game?!?


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> In the end, the answer to the 9:00 - 9:15 adventuring day is that once you have per-encounter and at-will abilities, you can say to your players "no, you don't get to rest to refresh your per-day abilities after going nova. You're still at 80% capability, so quit whining".




That's sort of what I said, pages and pages back.

I am amazed at the idea that per-day resources cause the 9-9:15 problem, which somehow managed to avoid cropping up in either 1e or 2e, when spellcasters had _fewer_ resources than now.



> Let's turn around the OPs question - should warriors have per-day abilities? Outside of minor abilities, they don't right now. Because that's the corollary to "every class has a mix of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities".




Right now, fighters have hit points as their sole per-day resource, AFAICT, and in return they have less (read, no) control over how the per-day resources of their party is spent.  As a meta-game concern, the ability of fighters to fight at almost any time, as opposed to that of spellcasters to cast spells, is one of the few mechanics that contributes to a lower-magic feel in any edition of D&D.  IOW, spellcasters gain "phenomenal cosmic power" at the cost of "itty bitty living space".

Where it is easy enough to create a magic system that includes "per day" resources, it becomes more difficult as well to create mundane actions that can only be done once per day.  So, either the fighter becomes more "magical" or restrictions are placed which are, and feel, schlocky.  Imagine, for example, a 5-foot step as a per-day resource. 

I am certainly not of the opinion that "per encounter" abilities are bad in and of themselves.  Rather, I am of the opinion that (A) expecting them to solve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem is wishful thinking at best, and (B) removing the overarching operational game from D&D is a mistake.  Of course, (B) depends very much on how you sort out abilities, but it seems to me that the designers are going heavily in this direction.

Also, although it might not seem immediately obvious, strengthening one side of an equation is going to require you to strengthen the other side or unbalance the whole.  So, if wizards get more power, the designers will have to give more power to fighters as well.  Already in 3.X we've hit the point where the fighter is considered by some to be underpowered, due to the raise in power of the other classes in respect to it.

The above isn't really a good answer to your question, although I hope it illustrates my feelings on the matter to some degree.

What sort of per-day ability would a warrior have?


RC


----------



## Baby Samurai

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What sort of per-day ability would a warrior have?




Cleave Mountain Top

"_Well I'm standing next to a mountain, chop it down with the edge of my_…"


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Honestly, I don't think anything _really_ needed to be added to the discussion, since most of us already have made their point, and nobody is willing to change his mind. 

Most of the discussion now seems to be rephrasing things that were already said...

The discussion has reached a point where nobody of the regular participants will benefit further from it, and only newcomers that don't already have an opinion on the subject can gain anything from the thread.

[/IMO]


----------



## Imaro

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> #2 only to _Dungeons & Dragons_, actually.
> 
> And if you look at the top 5 selling RPGs in the second quarter, only one of them features per-day resource attrition.
> 
> In fact, only D&D bucks this trend. Does D&D's place at the top have anything to do with the almost-universal correlation most of the public (gaming and non-gaming alike) has between D&D and RPG, or is entirely attributeable to D&D design? And assuming for a moment that the brand name has nothing to do with its market share and D&D really stands entirely on its own merrits in terms of design, is the per-day resource attrition system really such a cornerstone that people think of it right when they think of classes, levels, funny-sided dice, armor class, and hit points?
> 
> Sorry, RC. This was one of your weaker arguments in this thread.




Uhm...he asked about market share, not best selling game for one quarter.  The information you linked to doesn't give market share per say.  Mutants and Masterminds could have outsold certain games (like Scion) in a particular quarter because Scionemigod was pushed back and there are no other books to buy for Scion, yet for M&M three new books were released, so for that particular quarter Scion sells less and M&M sells more.  Yet overall Scion can still have a higher marketshare.  I mean I know WoD has the second highest marketshare( a little less than 20% on average).

As far as games listed having per-day resources...they do and they don't.  In Exalted  you don't "loose" charms but essence does not come back fully in every encounter.  A starting exalt has somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 essence points, you only recover essence when resting either 4pnts/hour for being at ease(leisurely stroll, enjoying entertainment, etc.) or 8pnts/hour if at total rest (sleeping or recieving a massage).  Even at total rest it will take you somewhere between 8 to 10hrs to regain all your essence after expending it.  It boils down to the same resource management as D&D, how much of my total resources do I spend in an encounter.   

Scion's legend points work a little differently...it is totally up to GM fiat when you "recharge" so it's neither a per-day or per-encounter resource.  It actually allows the most flexibility for GM and player and I think it works wonderfully.

nWoD is again a different case, it encompases alot of seperate games so I can't really comment on it as a whole...Vampire's vitae doesn't "recharge" in every encounter but there are ways to replenish it.  A Mage's magic doesn't run out but he/she risks it not working or worse through paradox.  Mortal "depletion" is made per-day through the use of health levels and die penalties, yet there's no easy way for a mortal to heal in nWoD so it becomes the major limiting factor.  Never played or purchased Werewolf, so I'm not sure how they handle resources.  I have Changeling the Dreaming, but haven't had a chance to read through it yet.


What I'd really like to see is D&D stay per-day but give ways that a character can recharge certain or all of his abilities (like when you feed in Vampire) or through GM fiat for certain actions(like in Scion), that way GM's have more control over the feel and type of game they're playing by limiting or expanding the opportunities for PC's to "recharge".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Sorry, RC. This was one of your weaker arguments in this thread.





No worries.  It wasn't an argument; it was a rebuttal.

M&M is all about the four-colour world of the comics, where an issue is generally about a few mooks and one big fight.  Although Spider-Man and Batman seem to go out when they're already wounded, it seldom seems to affect them too much (and Spider-Man is affected far more than the non-enhanced mortal, Batman).  This is a very good fit.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that resource-attrition models, like _Villians & Vigilantes_, suffered from being too much like D&D.

As a comic shop owner, I would have to say that the sales of D&D based comics, even among D&D players, is dismal.  I believe that this is because the type of action found in a typical D&D game doesn't translate well into comics.  Likewise, attempts to make D&D action work on the screen -- big or little -- have been failures.  IMHO, of course....some people liked the D&D movies, or were enthralled by Uni.  Yet D&D novels sell fairly well.

I have to admit that trying to force the game to emulate narrative markets where it has consistently failed, with the expectation that this will make the game better/sell better astounds me.  Of course, the designers seem to be moving away from this direction, and into a more MMORPG direction AFAICT, but there is definitely a vocal minority who would take the game into a more cinematic, more comic-booky direction.

Again, I think that this is a mistake.  Moreover, I don't think that D&D as a MMORPG is going to compete well with the online versions.  I'd rather see the philosophy of D&D return to its roots.  Not that I am going to get what I want, of course.    

RC


----------



## IanArgent

Dave Noonan addresses this issue in his recent blog entry



			
				WOTC_Dave said:
			
		

> More D&D: A few weeks ago in the podcast, I said the thing that excited me most about 4e was revisiting adventure pacing...the whole "wizard is done at 9:05 a.m." problem.
> 
> (I know that "done at 9:05 a.m." is not always the best specific example of the problem, but it's a useful shorthand. Suffice it to say that when the characters in a cooperative game are on radically different "power attrition curves," it can make it awfully hard for them to, well, cooperate. And the power attrition curves of a fighter and a wizard could hardly be more different.)


----------



## Jackelope King

Imaro said:
			
		

> Uhm...he asked about market share, not best selling game for one quarter.  The information you linked to doesn't give market share per say.



Yep. Sorry. Med student, not economics major here. All I knew was that according to the report, M&M was selling really well, so I felt the need to point it out.


> What I'd really like to see is D&D stay per-day but give ways that a character can recharge certain or all of his abilities (like when you feed in Vampire) or through GM fiat for certain actions(like in Scion), that way GM's have more control over the feel and type of game they're playing by limiting or expanding the opportunities for PC's to "recharge".



That wouldn't be a bad system at all.

Personally, I think my ideal would be to build off of Psionic Focus and its relationship with the various psionic feats from the XPH, which is a sort of _de facto_ per-encounter system. Certain abilities would be available to you while you were focused, but certain other abilities would require you to expend your focus as a free action to activate them, so you'd have a situation similar to Incarnum where you really had to choose on a round-by-round basis what you wanted your strengths and weaknesses to be.


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I have to admit that trying to force the game to emulate narrative markets where it has consistently failed, with the expectation that this will make the game better/sell better astounds me. Of course, the designers seem to be moving away from this direction, and into a more MMORPG direction AFAICT, but there is definitely a vocal minority who would take the game into a more cinematic, more comic-booky direction.
> 
> Again, I think that this is a mistake. Moreover, I don't think that D&D as a MMORPG is going to compete well with the online versions. I'd rather see the philosophy of D&D return to its roots. Not that I am going to get what I want, of course.
> 
> RC



Well, we'll see soon enough. This is something I've wanted for awhile, and something my group has wanted for awhile. The audience of college-aged gamers didn't grow up reading Grey Mouser or the like, and the idea of "returning D&D to its roots" is really repugnant to a lot of younger gamers. And not just because of the idea that old = bad, but because the fiction that inspired old school gamers is completely alien to today's younger gamers. Today's entry-level gamers are coming in informed not by Conan and the Grey Mouser, but by Peter Jackson's LotR and 300. Such is the benefit of growing up in a time when fantasy is plentiful and eye-popping and popular. It's a wholely different idea of what "fantasy" is, and I think that it's much more than a vocal minority, based on what I know from people I've gamed with in my age bracket. The success of games like Exalted alone show that there's a desire for it. But as you say, time will tell whether or not this works for D&D.

My hope is that it does.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Well, we'll see soon enough.





True enough.


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Are you seriously contending that, as a DM, you could not initiate encounters in _any_ edition of the game?!?



No. You're totally misunderstanding me. 

What I'm saying is that the resource attrition model works best when the players control when they get into combat encounters, ie, in a dungeon crawl when they decide to push ahead from a 'cleared section' to an unknown one.

The more unexpected/unplanned encounters the DM throws at them, the less well that model works. It's hard to manage one's resources daily resources intelligently when you can't predict when the next encounter will be.

I prefer a system that makes the players 'ready for action' whenever that might start. I don' like it a game that supposed to be about fast-paced heroic action devolves into players trying to second-guess the GM over when to use their decisive (read: cool and ass-kicking) abilities.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If an encounter may be lost unless you use your significant resources, it would be foolish to claim that the PCs can know which way the dice will roll ahead of time.  A fight that can result, for example, in a TPK is only a _threat_ of a TPK until it is over.  It would be foolish players indeed to assume that "Hey, it hasn't happened yet, so let's not take prudent action!"  However, it would be equally foolish to assume that the "threat" of any encounter would continue to be significant if said threat was divorced from any actual consequence.
> 
> My position on this has been extremely clear, over pages of posts, although I understand that it is far easier to answer a strawman position than the one that I am taking.



I agree your position is clear. I deny that it is true. I have given arguments in support of my denial. One of those arguments is the (imagined) example at post #1001. You have not responded to that post.

Frankly, I don't understand what you think the strawman is. But I also don't understand why you continue to insist that a party will always deploy its daily resources first, if it feels under threat, without considering in some detail what those resources, and their techniques of deployment, might be. It is this question that my example tries to investigate (drawing on the remarks made by other posters who play per-encounter systems, and the comments of the designers).



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> this was an example of the doublethink in Pemerton's examples.



As you probably know, "doublethink" is a term coined by George Orwell in 1984. It characterises the state of mind of an adherent of Ingsoc (and, by implication, a member of the British Communist Party of Orwell's time) to simultaneously believe inconsistent propositions (eg that Stalin is a great humanist, and that he murdered millions of people) as part of the system of ideological commitment.

I don't see that the term has any application to any participant in the current thread, given that none of us is engaged in the defence of any controversial political doctrine by way of inconsistent assertions.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (1)  Your resources are almost depleted by fighting the BBEG.
> 
> (2)  You need resources to have tactically challenging fights.
> 
> (3)  Therefore mop-up cannot be tactically challenging.​
> Coupled with
> 
> (1)  Tactically challenging encounters can exist without resource depletion.
> 
> (2)  Therefore you can have tactically challenging encounters that do not take resource attrition into account.​



This has nothing to do with doublethink. What you are alleging is contradiction. I have already tried to explain why there is no contradiction, particular in post # 1016. It is crucial to that explanation that the fight against the BBEG can be tactically challenging without necessarily leading to resource depletion (because it can _threaten_ such depletion in an interesting manner, without leading to such depletion), and/or that the mop-up can be interesting even though it does not threaten resource depletion (because, for example, doing it in such a way that it is a success without per-day resources being used is itself an interesting tactical challenge).

If you take the view that there can be no interesting tactical questions about the deployment of per-encounter resources, and these questions cannot implicate in an interesting fashion the possibility (without necessarily the actuality) of per-day encounter resource use, then you will not be persuaded that I have escaped contradiction. That is why I posted the example in post #1001, to try and show that these possibilities are real. It is also why I made the comment in post # 1016, that these possibilities are not real in core 3.5, because the only classes who get the relevant sorts of choices are spell users, and these choices are only whether or not to consume per-day resources.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Because in the first case, the mooks can be designed so as to not threaten remaining resources, either
> 
> A.  Pemerton is wrong, and per-day resources are not an impediment in the situation described, or
> 
> B.  Pemerton is wrong, and resource attrition is required for tactically challenging encounters.



Or C, as I believe, per-encounter resources open up tactical possibilities that are simply not available in core 3.5.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> All of Pemerton's examples boil down to "Per-day resource attrition is bad because it means that I cannot have five sequential encounters that use 25% of a party's resources each without them regaining resources between those encounters."



I have not asserted that per-day encounter resource attrition is bad. I have asserted, and still believe, that purely per-day encounter resource attrition places obstacles in the way of play based on thresholds of significance other than that of resource attrition or addition (which you have labelled "mechanical signficance").



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The reason an encounter has to use 25% of the party's resources to seem significant is due to changes made between 2e and 3e.  Moving to per-encounter resources will make the percentage of resources needed for an encounter to seem challenging even higher.  I have given my reasoning for this on a point-by-point basis, which has not been answered in a way that demonstrates it wrong (IMHO, of course).



Naturally, I believe I have shown there to be errors in your reasoning, by showing that a particular type of mechanical interest can arise (but not mechanical signficance, in your sense, because it is an interest that depends on the threat of resource attrition, rather than the reality, and also on the interest in making effective resource-deployment choices within the context of an encounter), which at the moment is available only to spell users, and only if they choose to expend per-day resources.

You apparently do not believe that this aspect of play is interesting. Perhaps you do not even believe that it is possible. I would be interested to see why you think these things, in light of my example at post #1001.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (Sooner or later, the next phase will be "Per-encounter resource attrition is bad because it means that I cannot have encounters that use 125% of a party's resources."  Then the bar will be set at "at will" abilities.  And why not have every ability "at will"?



I don't think that this remark has any bearing on my arguments about mechanical interest, which are predicated on the interest generated by a system which mixes per-encounter and per-day resources.

It would be relevant to concerns about strictly non-mechanical thresholds of interest, like those of plot development or thematic exploration. I suspect that the 4e designers are going in the direction that they are going (mixing per-day and per-encounter) because this is the mix most likely to facilitat a wide range of playstyles (though not operational play as D&D has traditionally known it) whereas purely at-will abilities would remove a significant amount of tactical challenge from the game.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No worries.  It wasn't an argument; it was a rebuttal.



This is a distinction I don't understand. In the two disciplines I'm familiar with (philosophy and law) one rebuts by providing counter-argument.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> All of Pemerton's examples boil down to "Per-day resource attrition is bad because it means that I cannot have five sequential encounters that use 25% of a party's resources each without them regaining resources between those encounters."



Correct. That is, purely per-day resources place a constraint upon the pacing and sequencing of encounters, which for certain desired playstyles (which want a pacing and/or sequencing of encounters that violates those constraints) creates an obstacle.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> the limitations I replied to were contrivances, and easily done away with.
> 
> It is no different than saying, for example, that if you expect the party to fight a CR 40 opponent at level 1, you'd better take that into account during your design.  If you are contriving to create a problem when you do design an adventure; similarly, you must contrive to create potential solutions.
> 
> This has nothing to do with per-encounter or per-day resources.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There is a difference in posting obstacles, and in posting obstacles that are inherent with a given game set-up related to a given threshold of significance.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So, yes, you can use per-day resources to provide an obstacle, regardless of what threshold of significance you are using, but, as I demonstrated, it is even simpler if you so desire to avoid an actual obstacle from being created if that is what is desired.  IOW, "halfway competent DM"s do not artificially create obstacles without providing the means to get around them, if the goal in the game is to not have said obstacles.



I don't dispute that a group who for whatever reason want to play D&D can work around the obstacles it poses to their desired playstyle, for example by compromising that playstyle. It doesn't therefore follow that they will not be better served by a set of mechanics that don't impose that obstacle in the first place.

For example, in 3E, any plot-line which has the following two features, (i) that every encounter is mechanically interesting (in the sense that it threatens, or actually results in, resource depletion) and (ii) that 7 encounters occur in the same game day, is quite difficult to pull off. That is because it is hard to achieve goal (i) without actually depleting resources, because in core 3.5 all resources that require a choice to use them are per-day. And this depletion of resources then makes it hard to achieve goal (ii), because after the first 4 or so encounters the party (and particularly the party spellcasters) will have no resources left to use.

A mix of per-day and per-encounter resources has the potential to allow such a plot-line to be played in a satisfactory manner.

If your conention is that only a bad GM or silly players would attempt such a plot-line using the current D&D rules, that may be so, in that they are trying to use the rules for a purpose that the rules don't really support. But there is nothing absurd, or contrived, about wanting to enjoy such a plot-line in a fantasy RPG. It is therefore not obviously irrational for the designers of 4e to try to come up with a set of mechanics that can support such a plot-line.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I have to admit that trying to force the game to emulate narrative markets where it has consistently failed, with the expectation that this will make the game better/sell better astounds me.  Of course, the designers seem to be moving away from this direction, and into a more MMORPG direction AFAICT, but there is definitely a vocal minority who would take the game into a more cinematic, more comic-booky direction.
> 
> Again, I think that this is a mistake.  Moreover, I don't think that D&D as a MMORPG is going to compete well with the online versions.  I'd rather see the philosophy of D&D return to its roots.  Not that I am going to get what I want, of course.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, for those of you who say "Resource attrition isn't important; we do without it fine in Game X" I'd like to ask, "What is the market share of Game X"?



I get the sense that this is your real concern, namely, that changing the D&D rules to support the sorts of encounter sequencings and pacings I and others have put forward in their posts would be a change for the worse, in that (i) it would lead to the game no longer _really_ being D&D, and (ii) it would undermine the market appeal of the game.

I broadly agree with the first of these points. In fact, having grown up on Moldvay Basic and AD&D 1st ed, I find that 3E is not really D&D. But I don't see that WoTC have any good reason to stick with a game that is really D&D, if it will not sell.

That therefore takes us to the question of market share. As a comic store owner, and therefore someone in touch with the commercial side of the hobby industry in a way that I am not, you are better placed than me to make those judgements. On the other hand, I would note that 3E departed from the roots of D&D, and this did not seem to hurt its sales. I would be surprised if WoTC is now taking D&D in a direction that is not supported by market research. And, for what it's worth, my own sense of the zeitgeist is that operational play, of the classic D&D kind, is really not that appealing to the majority of the contemporary gaming market.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Where it is easy enough to create a magic system that includes "per day" resources, it becomes more difficult as well to create mundane actions that can only be done once per day.  So, either the fighter becomes more "magical" or restrictions are placed which are, and feel, schlocky.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What sort of per-day ability would a warrior have?



Here are three that I can think off of the top of my head:

*Second Wind: 1x/day heal all lost hitpoints as a swift action.
*Warrior's Fury: 1x/day, when you reach half hit points or less, gain +2 STR & CON until the end of the encounter as an immediate action.
*Warrior's Fortune: 1x/day reroll one save, check or attack as an immediate action.

The first two can be seen as broadly phyical prowess. The last can be seen either as an in-game blessing, or as a purely metagame device.


----------



## IanArgent

Not to mention barbarian rage and stunning fist...


----------



## pemerton

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Not to mention barbarian rage and stunning fist...



Well-spotted!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that the resource attrition model works best when the players control when they get into combat encounters, ie, in a dungeon crawl when they decide to push ahead from a 'cleared section' to an unknown one.




I have used the model successfully for decades both when the players have chosen their encounters and they have had encounters thrust at them.  The only limit in a resource attrition model is that, if the DM goes over the PC's resources, then the PCs will suffer accordingly.  Interestingly enough, the only limit in a per-encuonter model is that, if the DM goes over the PC's resources, then the PCs will suffer accordingly.

It is true that the per-encounter model allows for a higher usage of resources (because the PCs have more resources), but it also has a much more limited mechanical theshold of significance.  You can do more, but mostly you can do more of the same thing.

Overall, I think that the _game_ works best when the players have a greater level of control over their actions (i.e., when their choices are more rather than less meaningful).



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> I agree your position is clear. I deny that it is true. I have given arguments in support of my denial. One of those arguments is the (imagined) example at post #1001. You have not responded to that post.




You obviously deny that it is true.

None of your arguments, AFAICT, demonstrate that my argument is incorrect.  Because I didn't respond to your post #1001 doesn't mean that there was anything in that post that required response.  For example, you say in that post

For example: it does not follow, from the fact that the players are not confident in any given round that they will win using per-encounter resources, that they will switch to per-day resources. This depends entirely on what the per-day resources are.​
but there is nothing in my analysis/argument that requires that they use their per-day resources in any given round.  Moreover, if you go waaaayyyyy back to my first post in this thread, I already said that this depends entirely on what the per-day resources are.  OTOH, we are told that the wizard, having uesd all per-day resources, will be at 80%.  So, again, there isn't a whole lot to answer here.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> I also don't understand why you continue to insist that a party will always deploy its daily resources first, if it feels under threat, without considering in some detail what those resources, and their techniques of deployment, might be.




Given that (1) You have resources, and (2) that there is no consequence for using those resources, it is always prudent to use your strongest resources first.  This is because, whenever there is an analysis of risk vs. reward, an intelligent being tries to minimize risk while maximizing reward.  So, yes, you _could_ wait to pull out the big guns, but that increases your risk.  If there is no balancing risk involved in pulling out the big guns, it is _always_ prudent to do so.

Now, it might be true that WotC designs 4e so that at-will resources are stronger than per-encounter resources, and/or per-encounter resources are stronger than per-day resources, but this seems very unlikely to me.  In fact, reading the playtest blogs it seems ver, very unlikely to me.

It seems equally unlikely to me that the game's players, generally intelligent people, will somehow fail to understand the risk/reward ratios noted above after playing the game for a while.  In other words, as soon as the shiny newness wears off.

It seems equally unlikely to me that, once the players begin adopting the best risk/reward ratio built into the game that the DM is unlikely to understand this, and in turn ramp up the danger of encounters so that they are not "too easy".



> If you take the view that there can be no interesting tactical questions about the deployment of per-encounter resources, and these questions cannot implicate in an interesting fashion the possibility (without necessarily the actuality) of per-day encounter resource use, then you will not be persuaded that I have escaped contradiction.




What part of the reasoning that I have outlined requires that there be "no interesting tactical questions about the deployment of per-encounter resources"?

Regardless of the paradigm used, the resources that you have in any given encounter can be considered "per that encounter" resources.  Clearly, if you are having an encounter, and have resources in that encounter, the way you use the resources can be tactically interesting.  There is no difference in this between the per-encounter and resource attrition paradigm.

The only difference occurs when you step outside of any given encounter, and examine the flow of the game from encounter-to-encounter.

No wonder you believe that you've "shown there to be errors in [my] reasoning" since you fail both to address it or, by your own admission, quoted above, understand it.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> This is a distinction I don't understand. In the two disciplines I'm familiar with (philosophy and law) one rebuts by providing counter-argument.




A rebuttal doesn't require a full-fledged counter-argument; it merely requires that the argument being rebutted is shown to be wrong.  See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttal .  

I don't need to prove someone else guilty to defend myself; I just have to show that your evidence doesn't prove me guilty.  I don't need to have a counter-philosophy to demonstrate the problems with a philosophical view; I need merely demonstrate the problems.

You might want to take a refresher on those disciplines.    

RC


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I have used the model successfully for decades both when the players have chosen their encounters and they have had encounters thrust at them.



So have I. But making it work required the use of contrivances that I never really liked (as opposed to the contrivances I _do_ like...). 



> The only limit in a resource attrition model is that, if the DM goes over the PC's resources, then the PCs will suffer accordingly.



No, the limit to that model is that the _sum_ of the challenges needs to closely match the PC's resource allotment. Which leads to predictability.



> Interestingly enough, the only limit in a per-encounter model is that, if the DM goes over the PC's resources, then the PCs will suffer accordingly.



The difference is that there's no need for more than a single encounter to provide the players with a challenge. Haven't we been over this before?



> You can do more, but mostly you can do more of the same thing.



As if PC's who are out of decisive resources _don't_ do the same thing over and over... This runs contrary to that wizard plinking away with a crossbow we've heard so much about lately.



> Overall, I think that the _game_ works best when the players have a greater level of control over their actions (i.e., when their choices are more rather than less meaningful).



No one in my current game has complained that I've robbed them of meaningful actions by deemphasizing resource attrition. It simply doesn't factor into the equation.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> No, the limit to that model is that the _sum_ of the challenges needs to closely match the PC's resource allotment. Which leads to predictability.




Whereas in the per-encounter model, each challenge needs to closely match the PCs' resouce allotment.  Are you seriously trying to claim that a game in which a series of encounters exists, with various levels of challenge, but where these levels have or have close to a sum of X, is _less predictable_ than a game in which a series of encounters exists, but where each encounter has or has close to a sum of X?



> The difference is that there's no need for more than a single encounter to provide the players with a challenge. Haven't we been over this before?




Once more, this is true in the per-day paradigm as well.  One big encounter uses all resources.  Woo hoo!

We may have been over it before, but you apparently missed the oft-repeated part where there's no difference here between the paradigms.  Per-day can do what per-encounter can do here; per-encounter cannot do what per-day does.

****

From now on, I hope you don't mind if I only respond to posts that contain points that have not been already answered to death upthread.

It is true that I may be wrong.  I sincerely hope that is the case.

It is true that you might not be convinced.  It doesn't bother me if that is the case.

Either way, time will tell.


RC


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Are you seriously trying to claim that a game in which a series of encounters exists, with various levels of challenge, but where these levels have or have close to a sum of X, is _less predictable_ than a game in which a series of encounters exists, but where each encounter has or has close to a sum of X?



I'm objecting to predictable encounter _frequency_, not _intensity_. I have no problem with the idea that most encounters (that are worth playing out and not just pseudo-handwaving) should be life-or-death.



> Once more, this is true in the per-day paradigm as well.  One big encounter uses all resources.  Woo hoo!



Did you miss the part about how 'one big encounter per day' plays merry hell with the class balance in the current edition? See 'nova-ing'.



> Per-day can do what per-encounter can do here



See above.



> per-encounter cannot do what per-day does.



Sure. But the question was 'But will you miss that?'.



> From now on, I hope you don't mind if I only respond to posts that contain points that have not been already answered to death upthread.



But some of them have been answered _badly_ upthread. But I won't blame you if you're done with this...


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Whereas in the per-encounter model, each challenge needs to closely match the PCs' resouce allotment.  Are you seriously trying to claim that a game in which a series of encounters exists, with various levels of challenge, but where these levels have or have close to a sum of X, is _less predictable_ than a game in which a series of encounters exists, but where each encounter has or has close to a sum of X?



They are absolutely less predictable.

In M&M, I ran one session where one day in-game included the following encounters for a group with a PL of 10:
- 1 PL 7 encounter against a Nullock Drone
- 1 PL 10 encounter against a Nullock Destroyer and a squad of Drones
- 1 PL 12 encounter against a Nullock Titan and a squad of Drone
- 1 PL 8 encounter getting past a swarm of distracted Nullock Drones
- 1 PL 14 encounter against the leader of the Nullocks

In D&D terms, these are roughly EL 7, 10, 12, 8 and 14 encoutners for a level 10 party.

In another session, I ran the following encounters in one day:
- PL 8 encounter against an information broker and his hired goons.

This was for a PL 11 team.

In yet another session, further back, I ran the following encounters in one day (for a PL 10 group):
- 1 PL 10 encounter stopping a coven of witches from raising their dead leader
- 1 PL 8 encounter rescuing civilians from a burning building
- 1 PL 9 encounter catching a plane that was falling out of the sky
- 1 PL 10 encounter stopping bridge from collapsing

A few weeks ago, I played in a game which included (as a member of a PL 11 group):
- 1 PL 13 encounter against other metahumans in the dead of night

And just last week, I ran a day which included:
- 1 PL 4 encounter catching a hitman who shot on of the PC's fathers
- 1 PL 9 encounter with a decapitating death-trap
- 1 PL 10 encounter with a crushing-wall death-trap
- 1 PL 12 encounter with a mustard gas death-trap
- 1 PL 10 encounter with evil robots was averted when the PCs asked an NPC friend to drain the generators (smart play on their part!)

Not all of these encounters have to be the same in terms of difficulty. Some are much more difficult, and others are considerably easier. Much more variety than is possible under a per-encounter system where the artificial limit of the 4 average encounters/day, upon which the per-day system was callibtrated by the designers. And not only are they different in what the PCs experience over a day, but each encounter is widely different in terms of the power of opponents (ranging from PL 4 to PL 14). Seems like plenty of variety to me.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> I'm objecting to predictable encounter _frequency_, not _intensity_. I have no problem with the idea that most encounters (that are worth playing out and not just pseudo-handwaving) should be life-or-death.




Per-day resources can easily handle any level of encounter frequency, by varying the intensity of the encounters.  Per-encounter resources can easily handle any level of encounter frequency, by varying the intensity of encounters.

Both systems can have an unlimited number of encounters, if all encounters are trivial.  The "challenge rating" of per-day trivial encounters is more limited than the "challenge rating" of per-encounter trivial encounters, but the intensity is the same; they are trivial.

Per-day systems can have only a limited number of significant encounters per day, but they have a much wider range of significant encounters than per-encounter systems.  True per-encounter systems can have an unlimited number of significant encounters per day (until the dice fail you, and you are defeated).  

Hybrid systems, such as that proposed by 4e, can have only a limited number of significant encounters per day due to the inclusion of resource attrition, while narrowing the range of significant encounters due to the "bar" set by per-encounter abilities.  The actual result is that of fewer significant encounters per day being possible than with a per-day system (or a pure per-encounter system, obviously).  



> Did you miss the part about how 'one big encounter per day' plays merry hell with the class balance in the current edition? See 'nova-ing'.




Again, unless that is all you do, it balances out over time.  

The problem with the current edition is that the range of significant encounters has been drastically narrowed from earlier editions, coupled with a paradigm in which there is no risk associated with resetting per-day powers.

But, hey, this is nothing that hasn't been said by myself and others _dozens of times_.      Makes sense that you missed it earlier.    



> See above.




Likewise.



> Sure. But the question was 'But will you miss that?'.




Yes.  And, from the playtest reports and the WotC blogs, it seems that the designers miss that, too.  The difference is, AFAICT, the designers are saying that the change in rules will restore what per-day did well in earlier editions (rather than make it go away), which seems to fly in the face of common sense.



> But some of them have been answered _badly_ upthread.




Not that I know of.



> But I won't blame you if you're done with this...




Well, we'll see in a couple of years, won't we?

I predict that the short adventuring day problem will resurface within 1 year of the launch of the 3 core books.  I also predict that either a 4.5 or 5e will make claims to repair precisely the damage that I am suggesting 4e will cause (much as 3.5 and 4e claimed/claim to repair the damage that 3e caused).

Again, we shall see.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Much more variety than is possible under a per-encounter system where the artificial limit of the 4 average encounters/day, upon which the per-day system was callibtrated by the designers.





The 4 average encounters/day is not a component of the per-day resource system, but rather a component of the synergy of several systems instituted by 3e that narrowed the range of mechanically significant encounters.

Otherwise, yes, you can have any number of encounters in a per-encounter system that may be significant using non-mechanical thresholds of significance.  As I said earlier.  But mechanical thesholds of significance can be examined using mathematics, and there the numbers are against you.

RC


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Per-day resources can easily handle any level of encounter frequency, by varying the intensity of the encounters.




Yeah, if you want to run 100 encounters in a day, you can do that in a per-day only system  of resources ... so long as you're willing to have 99 lame-kobold singleton encounters.

I don't find the argument particularly compelling, even when I don't reduce it absurdly.


----------



## Victim

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> MnM notes snipped




Mutants and Masterminds might be a bad example.  The most important resource subject to depletion is Hero Points, which aren't really per encounter or per day.  Instead they're refreshed by in game triggers (set backs and complications) or metagame concerns (roleplaying, extremely in genre actions, sessions, some elements of GM Fiat).  On the most basic level, MnM runs on per session resources, not per encounter or per day.  So it's another sort of beast entirely from both the types under discussion for 4e.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Whereas in the per-encounter model, each challenge needs to closely match the PCs' resouce allotment.  Are you seriously trying to claim that a game in which a series of encounters exists, with various levels of challenge, but where these levels have or have close to a sum of X, is _less predictable_ than a game in which a series of encounters exists, but where each encounter has or has close to a sum of X?



No, but you need to examine it beyond the individual encounters.  It will cause nearly no change in the individual encounters.  It will change the campaign paradigm, however.  Say we rate encounters in percentage of resources used up.  The players know that the sum of all the encounters are designed to add up to 100% in order to test them, or below that in order to be safe.  The sum of encounters will never add up to more than 100% if their DM knows the D&D system well enough unless he is purposefully killing them.  It is likely to be somewhere between 1 and 4 encounters each day or some of the encounters with be "insignificant".  In the 4th encounter, PCs can let loose with everything they have.

Now, you could have a string of encounters in the per encounter model that added up to 500% and not need to worry about killing the players as long as each of them wasn't over 80%.  The players might have 1 encounter or 20 encounters before they will find a place to rest.  If they have some per day resources, they need to be VERY careful as to when they use them since they don't know how long until they get them back.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Once more, this is true in the per-day paradigm as well.  One big encounter uses all resources.  Woo hoo!



No, generally one big encounter uses 60-80% or so of a party's resources.  Almost never ALL of it.  You reach a point where you HAVE resources left, they just aren't powerful enough resources to get you through even the easiest battle.  A 14th level party who is reduced to only 1st through 3rd level spells is on their last legs and probably can't survive even an average difficulty battle.

The party doesn't continue because another battle using up even 25% of their resources could kill them.

I believe the crux of the disagreement is that you believe players will not find an encounter that uses up ONLY their per encounter abilities as "significant" or "big".  I believe you can have a "big" encounter that uses up none of the per day abilities of a party that has a combination of per encounter and per day.

I think that most players in the new system will see their at will abilities as their standard attacks, their per encounter abilities as their resources and their per day abilities as their last ditch options when all hope is lost.

So encounters are rated as: Easy(didn't have to use any per encounter abilities), Average(used some per encounter powers, but not all), Hard(used almost all per encounter abilities, got close to the point where they might have had to use per day abilities), Overwhelming (had to use per day abilities or they would have died).

I think that most people see numbers coming off their character sheet and a limit where they won't have any numbers any more and they know that the closer they get to that limit the more danger they are in.  So, if you have 5 per encounter abilities and you use one each round and you are in round 5 of the encounter and you are now faced with the choice of asking yourself "Have I done enough damage to the enemy that I can finish them off with my weak (at will) abilities or do I have to bring out the big guns in order to win this?"

It's very similar to the reason the LAST encounter in the series of 4 encounters per day is the most exciting one.  It's the one where you get to see "Are the resources we have left going to hold up against this combat or not?  Maybe, maybe not."

It's a matter of knowing those numbers are coming off more than knowing they won't come back that makes people feel an encounter is hard, IMHO.  The players I know will be saying "Wow, I almost ran out of Power Words(or whatever they'll call per encounter resources) that combat, I almost had to use my Super Fireball, which I needed to save for the BBEG at the end.  Glad we got out of that one when we did."



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> We may have been over it before, but you apparently missed the oft-repeated part where there's no difference here between the paradigms.  Per-day can do what per-encounter can do here; per-encounter cannot do what per-day does.



I just showed you above how per day cannot have more than a certain number of encounters in a row.  That is something per encounter can do that per day cannot.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Yeah, if you want to run 100 encounters in a day, you can do that in a per-day only system  of resources ... so long as you're willing to have 99 lame-kobold singleton encounters.



Yeah, this is the main problem.  In order to make sure you use NO resources at all from the PCs, you have to make sure you don't deal any damage at all to them.  You also have to do this without making the enemy look threatening enough that the party might consider using limited use magic items or spells to attack.

This is near impossible as even a CR 1/4 creature still hits on a natural 20.  They might not do much, but after the 80th encounter with the kobolds, the PCs likely have used all their cure light wounds and are moving on to cure moderates.  Plus, they are likely having no fun at all as they are making a useless exercise in rolling dice with nothing exciting happening in the combat.

If you turn all of these into "average" encounters in the per encounter model, the PCs can still go on as long as they want, but with exciting events happening.  Never underestimate the pure thrill of "Did you see how I fireballed all of those orcs and then you whirlwind attacked to finish them all off?  They were no match for us!"

The PCs won't be fireballing in the per day model, since they know the enemies are a waste of their time and it makes much more sense to conserve their resources and use a crossbow.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Yeah, if you want to run 100 encounters in a day, you can do that in a per-day only system  of resources ... so long as you're willing to have 99 lame-kobold singleton encounters.
> 
> I don't find the argument particularly compelling, even when I don't reduce it absurdly.





Likewise with per-day/per-encounter hybrid systems, where anything that doesn't use per-day resources are the "99 lame-kobold singletons".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It will cause nearly no change in the individual encounters.




Here we certainly differ in our conclusions.  I suggest that we allow time to decide this one.



> It will change the campaign paradigm, however.  Say we rate encounters in percentage of resources used up.  The players know that the sum of all the encounters are designed to add up to 100% in order to test them, or below that in order to be safe.  The sum of encounters will never add up to more than 100% if their DM knows the D&D system well enough unless he is purposefully killing them.  It is likely to be somewhere between 1 and 4 encounters each day or some of the encounters with be "insignificant".  In the 4th encounter, PCs can let loose with everything they have.




Well, then, here's what I've been missing.  The 15-minute adventuring day problem doesn't exist in 3e!



> If they have some per day resources, they need to be VERY careful as to when they use them since they don't know how long until they get them back.




Exactly.  _If_ they have some risk involved with using per-day abilities, this problem disappears.  For example, if there is a risk associated with simply resting and resetting.  However, if this was true, the 15-minute adventuring day problem wouldn't exist in 3e either.

IOW, this is a problem caused by _how_ resources reset, not _when_ resources reset.



> I believe the crux of the disagreement is that you believe players will not find an encounter that uses up ONLY their per encounter abilities as "significant" or "big".  I believe you can have a "big" encounter that uses up none of the per day abilities of a party that has a combination of per encounter and per day.




That is correct, although I don't believe that it is universally true.  I think that any group that has the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem _now_ will continue to have it once _those same players who rest after each encounter_ begin to do so in the same system.  For these groups, the proposed changes in 4e would make the problem worse, not better.

Again, time will tell.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Yeah, this is the main problem.  In order to make sure you use NO resources at all from the PCs, you have to make sure you don't deal any damage at all to them.  You also have to do this without making the enemy look threatening enough that the party might consider using limited use magic items or spells to attack.




I could paraphrase that to read "per-day resources" instead of damage, you know.    

EDIT:  _Yeah, this is the main problem. In order to make sure you use NO per-day resources at all from the PCs, you have to make sure you don't deal any long-term damage at all to them. You also have to do this without making the enemy look threatening enough that the party might consider using limited use magic items or spells to attack._



> This is near impossible as even a CR 1/4 creature still hits on a natural 20.




You are greatly mistaken if you believe that 3.x's CR model is the sole -- or pinnacle -- example of a resource attrition model.  I'd go so far as to say that 3.x presents a piss-poor attrition model compared to earlier editions, which is why so many problems related to it cropped up in this edition that require "fixing" in 4.0.

I will also note that many of the "fixes" in 4.0 related to these problems look an awful lot like 1e, IMHO at least.  Action Points and per-encounter abilities are the exceptions.  Action Points, I think, do work to help solve this problem, but per-encounter abilities do not.  (Which is not to say that they aren't useful or good for other reasons.)


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The 4 average encounters/day is not a component of the per-day resource system, but rather a component of the synergy of several systems instituted by 3e that narrowed the range of mechanically significant encounters.
> 
> Otherwise, yes, you can have any number of encounters in a per-encounter system that may be significant using non-mechanical thresholds of significance.  As I said earlier.  But mechanical thesholds of significance can be examined using mathematics, and there the numbers are against you.
> 
> RC



You haven't shown this, RC. In fact, all you've really done is to use circular logic to argue that:

1. Mechanical thresholds of significance are only measurable by how one encounter's resource expenditure informs the next encounter in the day's outcome.

2. Per-day resource attrition is the only way to achieve mechanical thresholds of significance as defined in 1.

This leads me to conclude once again that your definition of "mechanical significance" is flawed. To claim that what happens within the context of an encounter is "irrelevant" in light of this definition can only lead one to conclude that your definition is not sufficient for the discussion.

I would suggest that in its place, mechanical threshold of significance must take into account the fact that it is an _encounter_ in which resources are expended, and whether or not the expenditure of resources within the context of any given encounter has significant mechanical impact upon the outcome of that particular encounter and the PCs' abilities to further continue in it. It's less relevant how an encounter impacts upon subsequent encounters in a given day because those encounters are entirely variable based on playstyle and context.

Indeed, a designer can't predict how many encounters a party will face in light of a wide audience such as D&D enjoys. A designer can't assume that a party will face just one or as many as ten encounters. The optimal solution is to assume that within the fundamental unit of the challenge, the encounter itself, the PCs are on equal footing, and that the crux of managing resources makes that encounter fun. It's not a delayed fun that may or may not happen, such as saving your fireball for an encounter that might not even be coming. It's not an unbalancing reward like going nova and then throwing up a _rope trick_ after every encounter so your spellcaster dominates. It maximizes that particular encounter, the only encounter a designer can know a party will have within any given unit of time. It's an invalid assumption to assume that all playstyles will face a similar ratio of resouce-consuming encounters in a given day, and the per-encounter system acknowledges this and instead focuses on the one encounter that a party is garunteed to have: the one they're in right now.

This is the ideal I'm describing. I'm well aware that 4e is slated to have elements of both systems. However, it illustrates my point that your definition of mechanical thresholds of significance is simply inadequate. If it concludes that mechanical thresholds of significance are irrelevant in light of the encounter the PCs are currently facing and is only relevant in encounters that they might not even face, then it is indeed flawed and needs revision.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> This leads me to conclude once again that your definition of "mechanical significance" is flawed.





If you believe so.  You may be right; I may be wrong.  We'll see.


RC


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Likewise with per-day/per-encounter hybrid systems, where anything that doesn't use per-day resources are the "99 lame-kobold singletons".




Nope.

In a per-day-only system, if I use up 20% of the party's resources in a combat, they can't get those back until they rest.  They'll be at 80% going into the next fight.

In a per-encounter and per-day system, I can use up 80% of the party's resources in a combat, and they'll all come back before the next one.  They'll be at 100% going into the next fight.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A rebuttal doesn't require a full-fledged counter-argument; it merely requires that the argument being rebutted is shown to be wrong.  See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttal.



And one shows an argument to be flawed by showing that one of its premises is wrong - which requires argument - or by showing that the reasoning deployed is unsound - which requires argument.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't need to prove someone else guilty to defend myself; I just have to show that your evidence doesn't prove me guilty.



This requires argument (unless the evidence of guilt is so weak that it's inadequacy speaks for itself - but then there is no rebuttal, either).



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't need to have a counter-philosophy to demonstrate the problems with a philosophical view; I need merely demonstrate the problems.



Typically by argument ie presenting reasons that support a conclusion.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You might want to take a refresher on those disciplines.



I actually teach both at a university, so my familiarity with them is fairly good.


----------



## pemerton

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> mechanical threshold of significance must take into account the fact that it is an _encounter_ in which resources are expended, and whether or not the expenditure of resources within the context of any given encounter has significant mechanical impact upon the outcome of that particular encounter and the PCs' abilities to further continue in it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The optimal solution is to assume that within the fundamental unit of the challenge, the encounter itself, the PCs are on equal footing, and that the crux of managing resources makes that encounter fun.



Excellent post. The bits I've quoted above are the clearest statements of the point I've been trying to make at least since post #1001, which gave an example (however imperfect) to try to illustrate how a suite of abilities mixing per-encounter and per-day might be designed to facilitate this sort of play.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Overall, I think that the _game_ works best when the players have a greater level of control over their actions (i.e., when their choices are more rather than less meaningful).



I don't dispute that. There are, of course, different conceptions of meaningulness (not unlike thresholds of significance!). Even if we are confining ourselves, here, to "mechanically meaningful" we can distinguish between tactical meaningfulness, which I think the designers are trying to increase in 4e, and operational meaningfulness, which I think will decrease.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Because I didn't respond to your post #1001 doesn't mean that there was anything in that post that required response.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Given that (1) You have resources, and (2) that there is no consequence for using those resources, it is always prudent to use your strongest resources first.



I'm mostly interested in your opinion of the example I sketched in my post. The point of that example was to try to indicate how per-day resources can both be useful, but not necessarily the most rational first response to an encounter. For example, a "second wind" ability is very useful, but one would not use it at the start of an encounter, because one would still be at or near full hit points at that point. Likewise, a "teleport the party" or "heal all allies" ability is not one with which one would open.

I also would dispute your claim that there is no consequence to using per-day resources. Assuming that they are not free actions, the consequence will be loss of an action in the round. Depending on the details of those per-day abilities, and their interaction with per-encounter abilties and the range of typical tactical situations, it may be quite common that leading with per-day resources is not rational even in an encounter that is obviously a dangerous one.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No wonder you believe that you've "shown there to be errors in [my] reasoning" since you fail both to address it or, by your own admission, quoted above, understand it.



I think I have addressed your reasoning. I have tried to give examples in which per-encounter and per-day resources are both available, and even though the encounter is challenging it is not rational to lead with one's per-day resources. The examples depend on the details (both in consequence, and activation cost) of the resources in question.

You continue to assert, at a purely general level, "In a dangerous situation rational players will always lead with their characters' most powerful (ie typically per-day) abilities" without considering, in detail, for particular suites of abilities, whether this is likely to be true or not. It is because of your focus purely on the generality, without looking at the details, that I had supposed you to think there could be no interesting tactical questions about the deployment of per-encounter resources.

Once one allows that such tactical questions can arise, and that they interact with the deployment of per-day abilities, it becomes (in my view) failry easy to envision suites of abilities which will _not_ result in the rational choice always being to lead from the per-day abilities.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Per-day resources can easily handle any level of encounter frequency, by varying the intensity of the encounters.  Per-encounter resources can easily handle any level of encounter frequency, by varying the intensity of encounters.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Hybrid systems, such as that proposed by 4e, can have only a limited number of significant encounters per day due to the inclusion of resource attrition, while narrowing the range of significant encounters due to the "bar" set by per-encounter abilities.  The actual result is that of fewer significant encounters per day being possible than with a per-day system (or a pure per-encounter system, obviously).



This is an illustration of what I mean by putting your view forward in a purely general fashion. You appear to be treating the encounter as purely a case of the players deploying the resources against the monsters, with the amount deployed being equal to E + D (until D runs out), then stuck at E.

If this were so, then you would be correct. My contention is that it is not so, and in particular that what the per-encounter system will endeavour to do will be to generate mechanical significance (but not in your sense of that term in earlier posts) by making the _manner_ of deployment of E interesting and challenging (for example, by giving characters abilities with diverse trigger conditions and activation costs). Furthermore, I think it will make the deployment of E interact interestingly with the deployment of D (again, in terms of trigger conditions and activation costs).

This is a type of mechanical significance that a pure per-day model _cannot deliver_ to the same degree (unless the uses per day are increased to a practically unlimited degree - maybe some 3.5 sorcerers fit this model), because a pure per-day model is not one in which a resource is deployed every round.

Thus, I do not agree with you when you say that "Clearly, if you are having an encounter, and have resources in that encounter, the way you use the resources can be tactically interesting.  There is no difference in this between the per-encounter and resource attrition paradigm." In a system which mixes per-encounter and per-day a mechanically and tactically meaningful choice of which resource to deploy (as opposed to whether or not to deploy a resource) gets made every round.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> mechanical thesholds of significance can be examined using mathematics, and there the numbers are against you.



But the mathematics is not simply R = E + D. One has to take account of questions to do with trigger conditions, activation costs and the consequences of resource deployment. I think the question at hand - that is, can an introduction of per-encounter resources resolve the 15 minute adventuring day issue by allowing for a larger number of mechanically interesting encounters to occur without rest being required - cannot be answered without thinking in detail about particular suites of character abilities, and the typical range of encounters they are to be used in.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Otherwise, yes, you can have any number of encounters in a per-encounter system that may be significant using non-mechanical thresholds of significance.  As I said earlier.



Does this mean that you agree that a move to incorporate per-encounter resources will remove certain obstacles to some playstyles that purely per-day resources give rise to?


----------



## Jackelope King

pemerton said:
			
		

> Excellent post. The bits I've quoted above are the clearest statements of the point I've been trying to make at least since post #1001, which gave an example (however imperfect) to try to illustrate how a suite of abilities mixing per-encounter and per-day might be designed to facilitate this sort of play.



Thanks. I think you raise a good point as well on the expenditure of resources, specifically that some powerful abilities (especially the likes _teleport_) simply do not make sense if they're used at the beginning of all but the most dangerous of encounters.

On the issue of nova-ing in particular, a very good analysis came up for it back after the release of the XPH on the Wizards of the Coast Psionics boards. The argument essentially pointed out that making your default setting "nova" (ie always using your most powerful, most damaging and most costly abilities first) has a poor cost-benefit ratio. The goal of fighting any particular enemy is to incapacitate that enemy with the smallest net loss in resources (ideally making a net gain from the treasure that the enemy drops). If you don't hit hard enough, you risk suffering HP damage in return from your enemy. You want to drop the enemy in the fewest number of rounds to avoid being dropped yourself.

However, there's no real functional difference between an enemy at -1 HP and -1,000,000,000 HP, so far as an adventuring PC is concerned. The only question is whether or not the enemy is in good enough condition to remain a threat.

So it's essentially a question of whether or not you'd be willing to use a firehose to fill your drinking glass, or if it'd be more efficient (cost-wise) to just use the faucet in the kitchen. Both will fill it, but 99% of what you used from the firehose will be wasted. It's often not worth the "wasted" resources to do it fast, unless the cost to regain the hit points you'll lose in the fight is greater than the cost to go nova. And from what we've heard about 4e so far with healing apparently being a more common thing, it sounds like it'll be cheaper to heal than it will be to use one of your handful of per-day abilities.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In a per-day-only system, if I use up 20% of the party's resources in a combat, they can't get those back until they rest.  They'll be at 80% going into the next fight.
> 
> In a per-encounter and per-day system, I can use up 80% of the party's resources in a combat, and they'll all come back before the next one.  They'll be at 100% going into the next fight.





If you believe so, we shall see.

However, per my analysis, this is exactly why the 80% resource fight is as insignificant as the kobolds re: mechanical threshold of significance.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> And one shows an argument to be flawed by showing that one of its premises is wrong - which requires argument - or by showing that the reasoning deployed is unsound - which requires argument.




A full-fledged argument is one which is, presumably, well-thought out, reasoned, and draws definite conclusions.  A rebuttal requires merely the statement that "I don't believe your premise X to be true".  IOW, "You have not met the burden of proof threshold I require". 

You may consider this an argument; certainly 90% of the rebuttal "arguments" I have seen levelled against me on this thread are nothing more.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm mostly interested in your opinion of the example I sketched in my post. The point of that example was to try to indicate how per-day resources can both be useful, but not necessarily the most rational first response to an encounter. For example, a "second wind" ability is very useful, but one would not use it at the start of an encounter, because one would still be at or near full hit points at that point. Likewise, a "teleport the party" or "heal all allies" ability is not one with which one would open.




(1)  Again, it doesn't matter which round you use your abilities in; merely that you either use them or do not.  Either an opponent is one who damages you enough where using "second wind" becomes prudent, or he is not.  If he is, the fight passes the mechanical threshold of significance.  If he is not, players will soon realize that these fights are mechanically meaningless.  Unless the average DM uses a theshold of significance other then the mechanical, this means that in the average game these fights are meaningless.

(2)  I will readily agree that any per-day ability that has no relevance to 90% of the game need not be considered.  For example, a "pick your nose" per-day ability has no bearing on how resources are used.

(3)  Before I begin answering a case-by-case "What if X?", "What if Y?" I would prefer if, having read what is already written about the topic, you can demonstrate that there is any point to answering them.



> I also would dispute your claim that there is no consequence to using per-day resources.




For someone who is well versed in logic and philosophy, you seem at a loss when confronted by an IF/THEN statement.    

My claim is not that there is no consequence to using per-day resources, my claim in that there must be one for prudence to _not_ use per-day resources in any mechanically significant encounter.....or, for that matter, in most encounters where winning is significant due to other thresholds of significance.

Again, IF there is no risk/reward consideration involved THEN it is always prudent to use your best resources in any given encounter.



> I think I have addressed your reasoning.




I appreciate your attempts to do so, but I think that, based upon your responses, you fail to grasp what I am saying.  This may well be my fault.  Perhaps I am not being clear enough.  Way back upthread I tried to start a Q&A method of explaining what I was saying, bringing it into the simplest possible terms I could think of.

Again, it doesn't matter whether or not one leads the encounter with one's per-day resources (as I have said or tried to say multiple times in multiple posts), only that an encounter is or is not challenging enough to make a party use their per-day resources, and that there is or is not a cost/risk associated with doing so.

BTW, I have said, repeatedly, that ensuring that tehre is a cost/risk associated with doing so is one obvious method of dealing with the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem.  In 1e, there were the following obvious costs/risks associated with using resources:

(1)  Some resources were intrinsically hazardous to use.  This includes spells that age you, System Shock, and the way potions mixed if you attempted to use two at once.

(2)  Wandering monsters were intended to create a time constraint.  If you sat around camping, or spent too much time searching an area, you ran a risk of encountering something else that might sap (or overwhelm!) your resources.

(3)  Limitations to what one can do within a round.  You can attack _or_ cast a healing spell, for example.

Well, we know that 3.X gutted (1) from the game, with very few exceptions.  Those sort of cost/risk assessments were apparently "unfun".  We know that the WotC site has run an adventure design article, widely discussed on this forum at one time, about cutting (2) from games because, again, they are "unfun".  We also know that 4e is designed to ensure that you can attack while, say, healing your companions because the types of decisions required by (3) are "unfun".

I realize that I am somehow not being clear enough, and that what seems blatantly obvious to me will still seem hazy and unclear.  I apologize in advance.  I am doing my best.



> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, yes, you can have any number of encounters in a per-encounter system that may be significant using non-mechanical thresholds of significance. As I said earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that you agree that a move to incorporate per-encounter resources will remove certain obstacles to some playstyles that purely per-day resources give rise to?
Click to expand...



My reply should read "Go back and read what I've already written on this".

Or it should read "Based on what I've written, the answer should be obvious."

Instead it will say:  "No.  You can have any number of encounters in any system that may be significant using non-mechanical thresholds of significance, because you need not take the mechanics into account.  Thus per-day resources don't give rise to this problem, nor do per-encounter abilities cause this problem, nor does any mechanical system."


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> On the issue of nova-ing in particular, a very good analysis came up for it back after the release of the XPH on the Wizards of the Coast Psionics boards. The argument essentially pointed out that making your default setting "nova" (ie always using your most powerful, most damaging and most costly abilities first) has a poor cost-benefit ratio. The goal of fighting any particular enemy is to incapacitate that enemy with the smallest net loss in resources (ideally making a net gain from the treasure that the enemy drops). If you don't hit hard enough, you risk suffering HP damage in return from your enemy. You want to drop the enemy in the fewest number of rounds to avoid being dropped yourself.
> 
> However, there's no real functional difference between an enemy at -1 HP and -1,000,000,000 HP, so far as an adventuring PC is concerned. The only question is whether or not the enemy is in good enough condition to remain a threat.
> 
> So it's essentially a question of whether or not you'd be willing to use a firehose to fill your drinking glass, or if it'd be more efficient (cost-wise) to just use the faucet in the kitchen. Both will fill it, but 99% of what you used from the firehose will be wasted.




This is only true if the resources used are "wasted".  If there is no cost/risk associated with using the firehose (which is not the case in real life), then the firehose is faster.  If there is no cost/risk involved in bringing your enemy to -1,000,000,000 HP, and there is a cost/risk associated with bringing an enemy to -1 HP (_If you don't hit hard enough, you risk suffering HP damage in return from your enemy. You want to drop the enemy in the fewest number of rounds to avoid being dropped yourself_), then prudence suggests overkill rather than underkill every time.

BTW, I have said, repeatedly, that ensuring that there is a cost/risk associated with using important abilities is one obvious method of dealing with the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem. In 1e, there were the following obvious costs/risks associated with using resources:

(1) Some resources were intrinsically hazardous to use. This includes spells that age you, System Shock, and the way potions mixed if you attempted to use two at once.

(2) Wandering monsters were intended to create a time constraint. If you sat around camping, or spent too much time searching an area, you ran a risk of encountering something else that might sap (or overwhelm!) your resources.

(3) Limitations to what one can do within a round. You can attack or cast a healing spell, for example.

Well, we know that 3.X gutted (1) from the game, with very few exceptions. Those sort of cost/risk assessments were apparently "unfun". We know that the WotC site has run an adventure design article, widely discussed on this forum at one time, about cutting (2) from games because, again, they are "unfun". We also know that 4e is designed to ensure that you can attack while, say, healing your companions because the types of decisions required by (3) are "unfun".

It is the costs/risks associated with any given choice that make moderation a worthwhile option.  Most players are smart enough to know that when making tactical decisions, even if, like the designers, they are not cognizant of why the game is becoming less fun, and fall under the mistaken belief that going further down the road of "no/reduced costs/risks" will somehow alleviate the problems that walking down that road has caused.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (1) Some resources were intrinsically hazardous to use. This includes spells that age you, System Shock, and the way potions mixed if you attempted to use two at once.
> 
> (2) Wandering monsters were intended to create a time constraint. If you sat around camping, or spent too much time searching an area, you ran a risk of encountering something else that might sap (or overwhelm!) your resources.
> 
> (3) Limitations to what one can do within a round. You can attack or cast a healing spell, for example.
> 
> Well, we know that 3.X gutted (1) from the game, with very few exceptions. Those sort of cost/risk assessments were apparently "unfun". We know that the WotC site has run an adventure design article, widely discussed on this forum at one time, about cutting (2) from games because, again, they are "unfun". We also know that 4e is designed to ensure that you can attack while, say, healing your companions because the types of decisions required by (3) are "unfun".



I sincerely doubt that 3 is being completely removed from the game. Rather, from what I've read, certain healing abilities are integrated with certain classes in such a way that the character's first role is no longer one of support/the walking band-aid.



> It is the costs/risks associated with any given choice that make moderation a worthwhile option.  Most players are smart enough to know that when making tactical decisions, even if, like the designers, they are not cognizant of why the game is becoming less fun, and fall under the mistaken belief that going further down the road of "no/reduced costs/risks" will somehow alleviate the problems that walking down that road has caused.
> 
> 
> RC



Ah, but that's not what seems to be happening. I honestly don't see the designers reducing costs/risks so greatly, but instead refocusing them so the costs/risks are mostly decided upon in light of making the only encounter the PCs are garunteed to have (the one they're currently in) as interesting and fun as possible. I've said it before, but the way things are being described, I think designers might purposefully design per-encounter abilities which, if used with abandon, will leave players with reduced options by the time an encounter is over.

Take the barbarian, for example. My thought would be the barbarian gaining some sort of "mini-rage" which won't last for the whole encounter, but will be useable in any encounter, so the barbarian will have to time when to use that rage very carefully. In the current per-day system, the barbarian's decision to rage is binary "yes/no" for a given encounter. If an encounter is dangerous enough to merrit raging, then he should on the first possible round, since the rage will last the whole combat. In essence, if you run fewer combats than the barbarian has rages (or at least tend to), there's no decision on the barbarian's part: rage, rinse, repeat.

Spellcasters are similar. As it stands now, the only reason for a spellcaster _not_ to use his biggest spells first is the threat of a possible later encounter that will require them. And smart nova casters know how to get around this with spells like rope trick, teleport, plane shift, etc. But that's a digression. Spellcasters are forced to focus not on the encounter at hand, but rather on an encounter that may never happen, and the system rewards it for them. It fails to account for the fact that there is only one encounter that is garunteed, and all others are only maybes that could become broken promises to the wise spellcaster who budgeted his magic wisely for an encounter that never comes. Players take a risk for essentially no reward, and they have very little control over whether or not they'll get that reward.

In fact, early encounters tend to be less tactical for the reason that the spellcaster is at full. They can blast with impunity, crossing off only one of _three_ fireballs from their spell list while still maintaining a majority of their power. It's only later in the day that managing those remaining resources even comes up, if ever.

But, if the system is designed around the idea that this one encounter is everything, and resources are designed accordingly, then it will focus players on the tactical fun of deciding on _this_ encounter. Rage this round or later, when the enemy closes? Do you use your only lightning bolt for the encounter now, or wait for the enemy to try to come through the choke point? Should the cleric go mix it up along side the fighter, knowing that the fighter will need healing soon and can only benefit from that area heal if the cleric is close enough and actually in combat? Should the rogue disappear into the shadows this round, or stick it out for another few rounds so that he can save it just in case the fighter needs someone to sneak around and help him whittle down at the BBEG with a nice sneak attack?

There might not be another encounter after this one, so why not make the rules for this one as much fun as possible?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I sincerely doubt that 3 is being completely removed from the game. Rather, from what I've read, certain healing abilities are integrated with certain classes in such a way that the character's first role is no longer one of support/the walking band-aid.




Given that we are told that a PC will be able to heal his comrades and attack at the same time, this is something where you and I are going to have to agree to disagree until there is something more substantial to examine.



> As it stands now, the only reason for a spellcaster _not_ to use his biggest spells first is the threat of a possible later encounter that will require them. And smart nova casters know how to get around this with spells like rope trick, teleport, plane shift, etc.




And yet you doubt, if there is no threat of a possible later encounter, that the spellcaster will use his biggest spells first?   


EDIT:  BTW, I consider spellcasters looking towards long-term ramifications to be a good thing, that enhances the game experience.  Obviously we differ here.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Given that we are told that a PC will be able to heal his comrades and attack at the same time, this is something where you and I are going to have to agree to disagree until there is something more substantial to examine.



Yes we will. Not enough information for anything definitive.



> And yet you doubt, if there is no threat of a possible later encounter, that the spellcaster will use his biggest spells first?



I'm saying that under the current per-day system, the game rewards players who know how to tip the scales towards their spellcasters by limiting themselves to the smallest number of encounters in a row possible, so that they can approach each encounter at full-power. Remember that in 3e, they're essentially given a goodie bag of spells and are told, "Now these need to last you all day through about four encounters, so be smart when you use them!"

So what does a crafty caster do? Use the bag as if there's only one encounter and then go rest and recover right away. Once he discovers that it is indeed possible for a spellcaster to regulate the encounters a party faces in a day, they discover that they can essentially control the button that resets their spells. So rather than use that goodie bag that was meant to be spread out over about four encounters, the spellcaster uses all the best stuff in the first one, goes off to rest, and then repeats later.

On the other hand, if the designers make it so that goodie bag is only good for one encounter, now the spellcaster is in-line with the other non-casters. The spellcaster can't "go nova" anymore by "borrowing" spells that were slated to be used in later encounters, because his resources are no longer alloted that way. Now the focus is on the only encounter that is garunteed to happen, and the spellcaster really can't abuse the system anymore to always go in with nova tactics.



> EDIT:  BTW, I consider spellcasters looking towards long-term ramifications to be a good thing, that enhances the game experience.  Obviously we differ here.



It's not bad if they look towards long-term ramifications. But it is bad if the system forces you to do that at the expense of enjoying the current (garunteed) encounter. Indeed, it would be just as inaccurate for me to muse, "_I consider spellcasters thinking tactically towards winning the current encounter to be a good thing, that enhances the game experience. Obviously we differ here._"

I enjoy the long-term planning. What I don't enjoy is when the system makes it more difficult to enjoy what encounters you _are_ facing because you have to save resources or be absolutely slaughtered in some later battle that may never come, so you're forced to sit out of the current one to "be prepared".

Put another way, there's nothing wrong with being prepared and always keeping a first-aid kit handy and staying on your guard, but you might want to start questioning the wisdom of hoarding all your resources and flinging pebbles at the enemy just so you'll still have bullets in case "THEY" come around the corner before you start making tin-foil hats for yourself


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'm saying that under the current per-day system, the game rewards players who know how to tip the scales towards their spellcasters by limiting themselves to the smallest number of encounters in a row possible, so that they can approach each encounter at full-power. Remember that in 3e, they're essentially given a goodie bag of spells and are told, "Now these need to last you all day through about four encounters, so be smart when you use them!"
> 
> So what does a crafty caster do? Use the bag as if there's only one encounter and then go rest and recover right away. Once he discovers that it is indeed possible for a spellcaster to regulate the encounters a party faces in a day, they discover that they can essentially control the button that resets their spells. So rather than use that goodie bag that was meant to be spread out over about four encounters, the spellcaster uses all the best stuff in the first one, goes off to rest, and then repeats later.




Absolutely agree.

But I also would say that

A game rewards players who know how to tip the scales towards their characters by limiting themselves to the smallest number of encounters in a row possible, so that they can approach each encounter at full-power.  So long as there is a goodie bag intended to last all day, a crafty player will use the bag as if there's only one encounter and then go rest and recover right away.  So rather than use that goodie bag that was meant to be spread out over a day's worth of encounters, the character uses all the best stuff in the first one, goes off to rest, and then repeats later.​
On the other hand, if the designers make it so that goodie bag is good for every encounter, the character can "go nova" in each encounter because he can reset after every encounter.  However, you are correct in saying that the character can't abuse the system anymore because it can be balanced to assume that the characters always go in with nova tactics.  This is why the mechanical threshold of significance is reduced; where previously it might have included any encounter that could affect the PC's resources, now it is only the narrow range that is challenging when the PCs go nova.

Of course, what 4e promises is a combination of these two systems.  It will still be true that there is a "goodie bag" meant to be spread over one day's encounters, so the problem created by that type of resource managment will still exist.

This will definitely lead some to balance their encounters to assume that the characters always go in with nova tactics, using both the per-day and the per-encounter goodie bags.  This reduces the mechanical threshold of significance even more; where previously it might have included any encounter that could affect the PC's per-encounter resources, now it is only the narrow range that is challenging when the PCs go nova with both per-encounter and per-day resources.

The only thing that prevents going nova with all resources is some form of risk or cost associated with doing so.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Actually, the only thing that prevents a player from "going nova" is to partition resources in such a way that players don't have access to them "earlier" than they should, so you can't go nova in encounter 1 by stealing resources that the designers assumed wouldn't be spent until encounters 2, 3, and 4.

You confusion seems to stem from using the term "nova" incorrectly. "Going nova" was unbalanced because it meant using several encounters worth of resources to win. If resources aren't structured that way, then going nova is impossible. It means to burn resources that the designers assumed you'd use later in the day earlier than expected, and thus being more effective.

You are still failing to see that your definition of "mechanical threshold of significance" is faulty. The one I presented above shows that there are still significant thresholds of significance in what I described when you look at the encounter itself and the risks and challenges faced in any given encounter. Your definition makes the expenditure in and for given encounter irrelevant, and only looks at the net sum of the affects of multiple encounters on resources.

As I described in post #1070, you continue to overlook and define away the _only_ mechanical threshold of significance that a designer can realistically assume. It's folly to design a resource system where the design assumes the long term that might not even happen to the detriment of the definite that is already happening.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Actually, the only thing that prevents a player from "going nova" is to partition resources in such a way that players don't have access to them "earlier" than they should, so you can't go nova in encounter 1 by stealing resources that the designers assumed wouldn't be spent until encounters 2, 3, and 4.




Well, here we differ philosophically, because I believe that the designers have no business deciding what resources the players use in each encounter, out of the resources available.  I am of the opinion that is is for the DM/designers to offer meaningful choices, which are meaningful because they have both context and consequence, and that is for the players to then make decisions on that basis.  I am therefore against anything that removes either context or consequence as a matter of principle.

In any event, though, I have already agreed that a full per-encounter system eliminates the short adventuring day problem, so long ago that I'm shocked that this is still somehow "evidence" against by general position.



> You confusion seems to stem from using the term "nova" incorrectly. "Going nova" was unbalanced because it meant using several encounters worth of resources to win.




You seem to think that going "nova" is anything short of using up all or most of your significant resources within a given encounter.  Going "nova" isn't generally a problem within a strictly per-encounter system, as I said in the post you are responding to, the portion of which (apparently) you missed, so that while going "nova" is possible the reset is so short that the subsequent burn-out is generally not important.

If you truly believe that going nova is impossible in such a game, however, I challenge you to extend an encounter in such a system _after_ the PCs have burned through their resources by throwing more mechanically significant opponents at them.  If they don't complain, don't call it unfair, and don't feel nova-burn, then you'll have made your point.



> You are still failing to see that your definition of "mechanical threshold of significance" is faulty.




You are still failing to demonstrate that it is so, or that you have understood my arguments to this point.  Again, this may be my fault.  However, as what is now occurring is a monumental waste of both of our times, let us simply agree to disagree until a year after the three core 4e books have released, and then we can examine whether or not the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem still exists.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, here we differ philosophically, because I believe that the designers have no business deciding what resources the players use in each encounter, out of the resources available.  I am of the opinion that is is for the DM/designers to offer meaningful choices, which are meaningful because they have both context and consequence, and that is for the players to then make decisions on that basis.  I am therefore against anything that removes either context or consequence as a matter of principle.



One of our divides. Designers cannot reliably make those choices meaningful because they can't assume and design around multiple encounters that might not happen... their time would be better spent designing making that one garunteed encounter the best it can be.



> In any event, though, I have already agreed that a full per-encounter system eliminates the short adventuring day problem, so long ago that I'm shocked that this is still somehow "evidence" against by general position.



My appologies.



> You seem to think that going "nova" is anything short of using up all or most of your significant resources within a given encounter.  Going "nova" isn't generally a problem within a strictly per-encounter system, as I said in the post you are responding to, the portion of which (apparently) you missed, so that while going "nova" is possible the reset is so short that the subsequent burn-out is generally not important.
> 
> If you truly believe that going nova is impossible in such a game, however, I challenge you to extend an encounter in such a system _after_ the PCs have burned through their resources by throwing more mechanically significant opponents at them.  If they don't complain, don't call it unfair, and don't feel nova-burn, then you'll have made your point.



I am perfectly aware fo what going nova is. What you're describing simply isn't going nova. Is it still a problem? Sure it is... draining characters of resources and hitting them while they're weak is a problem for any system where resources can be lost. _but that isn't going nova_. Going nova is a very voluntary action where you use _more_ resources than normally alloted to you in a given time-frame to become temporarily more powerful than is otherwise possible. That's what "going nova" means. Not just "being powerful", but "being more powerful than you should be because you're using resources more quickly than the system accounts for".



> You are still failing to demonstrate that it is so, or that you have understood my arguments to this point.  Again, this may be my fault.  However, as what is now occurring is a monumental waste of both of our times, let us simply agree to disagree until a year after the three core 4e books have released, and then we can examine whether or not the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem still exists.
> 
> RC



Fair enough.


----------



## IanArgent

It doesn't matter if the character can expend all of his per-encounter resources if his per-encounter resources under 4e are 1/4 of his per-day resources under 3.5. For a number of different reasons its likely to be closer to 1/3 or so. Will that assuage your worries, about 'nova', Raven?

In general, 4e seems to be 'disabling' the ability to borrow resources, either forward or back in time. Classes do this by limiting power at one end or the other of the power curve (usually giving up power at lower level for extra power at higher levels). In encounters, this leads to most of a character's power being available at all times, but not being able to 'save' power forward. Currently, encounter design has to assume that characters can _optionally_ save power from previous encounters, or borrow power from following encounters. Its another example of the unpredictability of party power level. In this case the most predictable encounter is the first one in a day - as an adventure designer you can assume that the party is at 100% (though because of the variability introduced by the skills system and by the multiclassing system you can't know what _every_ party's 100% power level is. After that first encounter for the day you _cannot_ predict what the party's power level is. After the first encounter of the adventure, you can't even predict what the first encounter of the day is without heavy railroading.

80% of a character's power being in per-encounter/at-will abilities is an answer to the question "what is the party's power level for this specific encounter?" The answer is "somewhere between 80% and 100% of the party's maximum power".

The more I think about 4ed design, the more I see what the fundamentals of 4ed are going to be, and the more I like them. The goal is predictability of design. No matter where you look, no matter what segment of play you're examining, the goal is to cut off the far right and left of the bell curve, and flatten the top of the curve to spread it out. The opposing goal is to prevent everything from looking and playing the same - this is a balancing act; and will require some compromise.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, here we differ philosophically, because I believe that the designers have no business deciding what resources the players use in each encounter, out of the resources available. I am of the opinion that is is for the DM/designers to offer meaningful choices, which are meaningful because they have both context and consequence, and that is for the players to then make decisions on that basis. I am therefore against anything that removes either context or consequence as a matter of principle.



The problem with this is the people who cannot prep before running for whatever reason, and have to use commercial-off-the-shelf modules with no editing whatsoever. If you have time to prep, of course it's trivial to design your own adventures etc to target your own party and its tactics, etc. In a COTS module, the module designer _cannot_ know the capabilities of the party being run through the adventure. In that case the predictability of party design is a big gain. And at the same time, if the GM is running a COTS module, the party has no insight into the designers' thinking or design theory, and cannot 'budget' their power. And _you_ don't get to say that's not a viable way to play; the designers _have_ to support the no-prep game style, or people fall away because they don't have time to prep and play both. 

Adventure design _has_ to be decoupled from party design; and the way the designers have chosen to do this is to make party capability at every 'level' of design theory (from character design to advancement to monster placement etc) the 'curve' of variability has been cut off at both ends and flattened. Characters will all be MUCH closer in power level to each other at each level and each encounter. This is for the benefit of adventure designers primarily, not for players.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> _but that isn't going nova_. Going nova is a very voluntary action where you use _more_ resources than normally alloted to you in a given time-frame to become temporarily more powerful than is otherwise possible. That's what "going nova" means. Not just "being powerful", but "being more powerful than you should be because you're using resources more quickly than the system accounts for".





Ah, then.  Obviously the problem doesn't exist.  I can't use more per-day resources within a given encounter than allotted to me in a given day either.


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> The problem with this is the people who cannot prep before running for whatever reason, and have to use commercial-off-the-shelf modules with no editing whatsoever.




I think that my point is even more true under these circumstances.  A COTS module should not decide what resources should be used in any given encounter, if for no other reason that that the writer _cannot_ have enough information to make this determination.  A COTS module should present interesting decisions, with context and consequence built into them.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter if the character can expend all of his per-encounter resources if his per-encounter resources under 4e are 1/4 of his per-day resources under 3.5. For a number of different reasons its likely to be closer to 1/3 or so. Will that assuage your worries, about 'nova', Raven?




Could you please tell me which concerns you are asking about?


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ah, then.  Obviously the problem doesn't exist.  I can't use more per-day resources within a given encounter than allotted to me in a given day either.




But if you use all of your per-day abilities in one encounter and the adventure designer assumed you woud only use 1/4; the next encounter fails. Alternatively, if you do use only 1/4 of your abilities in an encounter where the designer assumed you'd use more, the encounter fails. That's the problem - there is no way per-encounter for the designer to know (within a reasonable margin of error) what power level you have available _and_ are willing to use, _in this encounter_. Encounters are the quantum of D&D design; days are not.


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> But if you use all of your per-day abilities in one encounter and the adventure designer assumed you woud only use 1/4; the next encounter fails. Alternatively, if you do use only 1/4 of your abilities in an encounter where the designer assumed you'd use more, the encounter fails.




So long as the encounter is fairly presented (i.e., given enough context to make meaningful decisions) I call this "consequences" and believe that it is a laudbile design goal.  The designer doesn't need to know what power level you have available _and_ are willing to use, _in this encounter_.  He only needs to what resources you should have available for the entire adventure.



> Encounters are the quantum of D&D design; days are not.




IMHO, it was a poor decision to hinge so much of the design structure on this maxim.

That you believe that it is impossible for a module designer in 3.X to present fair-yet-challenging encounters throughout the course of an adventure, whereas this was very, very simple in earlier editions, can be taken as evidence.


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think that my point is even more true under these circumstances.  A COTS module should not decide what resources should be used in any given encounter, if for no other reason that that the writer _cannot_ have enough information to make this determination.  A COTS module should present interesting decisions, with context and consequence built into them.
> 
> 
> RC




Exactly. The COTS designer _cannot_ know what resources the party has available. HE has to make reasonable assumptions based on the assumptions built into the system. The assumptions built into 3.5 make it impossible to know what resources a party has available for the current encounter. Not hard; impossible. The designer _cannot_ know with any certainty what every party has available.

Thus the decision in 4ed to make that _much_ more predictable. You can see this reflected in the SWSE skills system, where the designer can know, with a high degree of certainty, that the party has the ability to make a skill check between 1/2 APL and 1/2 APL +10. (We have been told that the SWSE system is a reflection of 4ed design theory at that point in time - on the other hand it is not being ported as-is to 4ed). We can also see this in the statement that 80% of a character's resources will be available in any encounter via the statement that after a character's per-day abilities are expended they will still be at 80% of capacity. This is a "good thing", it means that when a designer makes an assumption of the party being at 90% when he designs an encounter, he can be within +/-10%.

As long as encounters are the quantum of adventure design, the party's abilities must be balanced to a per-encounter paradigm. Otherwise game design suffers.


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So long as the encounter is fairly presented (i.e., given enough context to make meaningful decisions) I call this "consequences" and believe that it is a laudbile design goal.  The designer doesn't need to know what power level you have available _and_ are willing to use, _in this encounter_.  He only needs to what resources you should have available for the entire adventure.



If resources were all per-adventure, that would be a laudable goal. They aren't.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IMHO, it was a poor decision to hinge so much of the design structure on this maxim.




What maxim would you design around? Please note that it has to work in both the DM is intimately familiar with his party and the rules and wrote his adventure to exactly fit that one party and the scenario of a COTS adventure and an entirely inexperienced DM running the game for the first time. The quantum of design being the encounter is easy to explain and design around.


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> The assumptions built into 3.5 make it impossible to know what resources a party has available for the current encounter. Not hard; impossible.




Which makes them piss-poor assumptions to build into the system in the first place.  However, whereas you see the 4e design notes as pointing away from those assumptions, I see them walking even farther along that path.


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> If resources were all per-adventure, that would be a laudable goal.






> What maxim would you design around?




Answered your own question on that one.



> The quantum of design being the encounter is easy to explain and design around.






> The COTS designer cannot know what resources the party has available. HE has to make reasonable assumptions based on the assumptions built into the system. The assumptions built into 3.5 make it impossible to know what resources a party has available for the current encounter. Not hard; impossible. The designer cannot know with any certainty what every party has available.




Easy to explain and design around?  While at the same time making part of the designer's job impossible?

Color me unconvinced.    

RC


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Which makes them piss-poor assumptions to build into the system in the first place.  However, whereas you see the 4e design notes as pointing away from those assumptions, I see them walking even farther along that path.




They're aligning character design assumptions with encounter design assumptions; and each class's design is being aligned with the other class's design.

Incidentally, in my experience with Shadowrun, it does unitary adventure design - the encounter is _not_ the quantum of design; adventures are designed as tack/goal. Do this task, achieve this goal. "Encounter" design is much more fluid. And there is _no_ resource management in the D&D sense. Everything is "at-will" or "expendable"; there is nothing in between. I would love to be able to run something like this in D&D; but 3.5 has several legacy D&Disms that mit very hard. 4ed, IMHO, will make it easier to do so, because I can set up encounters that do not necessarily depend on a previous encounter to strip resources from the party, but at the same time be able to run the same encounter if they did hit the previous encounter.

Per day inherently means that in a day that has multiple encounters, the party is not able to use all its resources in one encounter. I would rather have this defined in the system and be able to anticipate what power level is available in every encounter with a high degree of certainty than the alternative.


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Easy to explain and design around?  While at the same time making part of the designer's job impossible?
> 
> Color me unconvinced.
> 
> RC





Waitasec. You don't get to conflate my statements on 3.5 ("cannot know what the party's capabilities are") with my expectations for 4ed ("can know what the party has available because most abilities are per-encounter or at will").

To restate; in 3.5, the adventure designer cannot know with any certainty what resources the party can deploy in the encounter they are in. This is because some classes are entirely at-will/per-encounter, some are a mix of at-will/per-encounter and per-day, and some classes are entirely per-day. The decisions made as the party makes its way through the adventure are entirely unpredictable, and can result in party's that are at any point able willing to deploy in the encounter between 100% and 0% of their core class abilities in that encounter.

With the 4ed design as we have seen, in particular that 80% of a character's abilities will be available in every encounter, the designer can start with the assumption that the party will be willing and able to deploy between 80% and 100% of their core class abilities in each encounter.

I assume from your previous statement that you would prefer to design around the per-adventure paradigm. How do you balance resources in that paradigm without dropping resource management entirely? And remember you have to meet the goal of being able to run, unprepared and inexperienced, for 5 of your friends, after reading the PHB once, and the adventure once. Per day is an even _worse_ paradigm for resource management in a per-adventure design paradigm; unless you as the GM control when the "day" ends and can prevent the players from both stopping too early and running too far. An experienced GM can do this, but it takes experience how to handle this, and is a _lot_ harder to judge.

resource management and adventure design quanta should be aligned; and all classes should be aligned as well - otherwise there will be trouble.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> For someone who is well versed in logic and philosophy, you seem at a loss when confronted by an IF/THEN statement.



It depends on what you mean by "at a loss". Some of your comments appear to suggest that the issue at hand is one of logical form and burdens of proof. I don't see those as an issue.

Consider the following sentence "If he is an Englishman, then he is brave." Confronted with such a sentence I am not at a loss as to its logical form. Nor am I puzzled about standards of proof. I am at a loss as to why its asserter believes it to be true. It is obviously not an analytic truth. I therefore look around for ancilliary premises that might support its truth - such as "All Englishmen are brave." If I don't believe that these ancilliary premises are true, then I don't belive the original sentence.

As I will try to illustrate, I believe we are in a similar position. Your reasoning depends (as far as I can tell) upon a particular presupposition which I believe to be false. Previously, I think this presupposition was unarticulated, but one of your recent posts makes it explicit.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> it doesn't matter which round you use your abilities in; merely that you either use them or do not.  Either an opponent is one who damages you enough where using "second wind" becomes prudent, or he is not.  If he is, the fight passes the mechanical threshold of significance.  If he is not, players will soon realize that these fights are mechanically meaningless.  Unless the average DM uses a theshold of significance other then the mechanical, this means that in the average game these fights are meaningless.




There is a lot going on in this paragraph. I'm going to unpack it. I'm also going to substitute the general case or per-day resources in place of "second wind".

* If an encounter is one in which using per-day resources becomes prudent, the encounter passes the mechanical threshold of significance.​
This is uncontroversial as between us. So I'll move on.

* If an encounter is one in which using per-day resources does not become prudent, the encounter does not pass the mechanical threshold of significance.​
This is true (analytically true) if "to pass mechanical threshold of significance" is defined to mean "to have an effect (attrition or accretion) on available resources." And I don't dispute analytic truths. But as I have noted, mechanical significance in this sense may not be the only sort of mechanical interest that an encounter can have.

So let me consider this alternative assertion:

* If an encounter is one in which using per-day resources does not become prudent, the encounter is not of mechanical interest.​
Is this claim true? Suppose that, as you assert, "It doesn't matter which round you use your abilities in; merely that you either use them or do not." Then we can see something like the following chain of reasoning:

* What is interesting about an ability is its use (its round of use doesn't matter).

Therefore,

* An encounter in which an ability is not used (or in which only abilities whose use has no cost, like per-encounter abilities, are used) is not mechanically interesting.

Therefore,

* If an encounter is one in which using per-day resources does not become prudent (and therefore they are not used), the encounter is not of mechanical interest.​
The above chain of reasoning obviously is not formally valid, but I think it has a degree of plausibility. And I take it to be a fair semi-formal presentation of your reasoning.

Accepting this inference as valid, then, its soundness (ie its capacity to prove the truth of its conclusion) depends entirely upon the truth of the claim that it doesn't matter in what round an ability is used. And as far as I can tell that claim is entirely false. I will explain why I think this below, after considering some further parts of your post.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, IF there is no risk/reward consideration involved THEN it is always prudent to use your best resources in any given encounter.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it doesn't matter whether or not one leads the encounter with one's per-day resources (as I have said or tried to say multiple times in multiple posts), only that an encounter is or is not challenging enough to make a party use their per-day resources, and that there is or is not a cost/risk associated with doing so.



Once again, this seems to depend upon the claim that it doesn't matter in what round an ability is used. Which I still think is entirely false. I still owe you an explanation of why I think this - it's coming.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> BTW, I have said, repeatedly, that ensuring that tehre is a cost/risk associated with doing so is one obvious method of dealing with the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem.  In 1e, there were the following obvious costs/risks associated with using resources:
> 
> (1)  Some resources were intrinsically hazardous to use.  This includes spells that age you, System Shock, and the way potions mixed if you attempted to use two at once.
> 
> (2)  Wandering monsters were intended to create a time constraint.  If you sat around camping, or spent too much time searching an area, you ran a risk of encountering something else that might sap (or overwhelm!) your resources.
> 
> (3)  Limitations to what one can do within a round.  You can attack _or_ cast a healing spell, for example.



I know you said these things. I also agree with you that these are techniques for controlling the expenditure and the recovery of resources.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, we know that 3.X gutted (1) from the game, with very few exceptions.  Those sort of cost/risk assessments were apparently "unfun".  We know that the WotC site has run an adventure design article, widely discussed on this forum at one time, about cutting (2) from games because, again, they are "unfun".



I agree that there is no doubt that (1) and (2) are not part of 3E. That is why I have said repeatedly, on this and other threads, that 3E already exemplified the trend that 4e is continuing, of moving away from operational play to other modes of play.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> We also know that 4e is designed to ensure that you can attack while, say, healing your companions because the types of decisions required by (3) are "unfun".



Here is a substantial point of disagreement. Not about your particular example - I also have read the dragon fight summary. But in fact the rationing of actions per round will be _crucial_ to 4e design. That is part of the rationale of going from per-day to per-encounter - by _increasing_ the number of options available to each character in a given round, the intention is to make the _choice_ of which action to take in any given round a more interesting one. At present, fighters have an unlimited supply of actions (assuming they do not run out of hit points) but virtually no choice of actions - they move and attack until the foe stands still, and then they full attack every round. Casters, on the other hand, have much choice of action but an extremely finite supply of actions (ie once they use all their spells they have no meaningful choices left).

(You may say that casters always have the choice to _do nothing_, that is, to conserve a spell for a later time. While true, I think the 4e designers deliberately exclude this from the list of viable choices, for the simple reason that most people do not find it a virtue in a game to have to skip a turn. I suspect you disagree with the 4e designers here - I will return to that below.)

Once we accept that the goal is to give each character meaningful choices of actions in a round - thus giving players meaningful choices in each round - it seems obvious to me that it matters hugely, from the point of view of mechanical interest, in which round a given ability is used.

Suppose, for example, that in round _N_ I choose to defer use of my "second wind", because I believe that (i) I have enough hits to survive into round _N_+1, and therefore that (ii) I should instead this round use my per-encounter ability to add my level to damage as a swift action - thereby perhaps killing the foe and allowing me to conserve my "second wind" because the party healer can heal me without consuming resources. In such a situation something of mechanical interest has happened although it never became prudent to use my per-day resource. The interest is a result not of resource consumption, but of the need to make a decision about resource consumption.

This also shows that mixing per-day resources with other, non-reducing resources adds a new dimension of interest to the game that is missing at present, namely, the capacity to have interesting decisions about resource use that do not deplete resources.

It is true that, after the encounter, the players will look back and say "That didn't consume our per-day resources." They may even look back and say "On reflection that was never going to consume our per-day resources." But as long as they do not know that those things are true _during the encounter itself_, the encounter will be of mechanical interest (and so quite unlike the much-derided 10th level fighter vs 4 kobolds).

To link this back to the key premise in your argument: it is true that, once the fight is over, _if per-day resouces were used it does not matter in which round they were used._ Likewise, once the fight is over, if they were not used it does not matter in which rounds their use was or was not contemplated by the players. But the interest of an encounter is not something which is determined by reflection on it after it is over. It is something which unfolds within the very encounter itself - and during the encounter (i) the players do not know whether or not their per-day resources will end up being consumed or not and (ii) are able to determine whether or not they will be through their own mechanically interesting choices.

Just as you are puzzled by my failure to believe you, so I am puzzled by your seeming inability to appreciate the dynamic epistemic situation that a player is in during an encounter, and which is (to me) a very obvious and rich source of mechanical interest, even if there is (at the end of it all) no mechanical significance in the sense of resource attrition or accretion.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You can have any number of encounters in any system that may be significant using non-mechanical thresholds of significance, because you need not take the mechanics into account.  Thus per-day resources don't give rise to this problem, nor do per-encounter abilities cause this problem, nor does any mechanical system.



Just as a postscript, this claim is false if one assumes that the PCs use their abilities during encounters. You cannot have any number of encounters per day in a system of purely per-day resources, even if using a non-mechanical threshold of significance, because the PCs run out of the resources needed to participate in those encounters.

I say this from experience. I GM a lot in a system of per-day resources, namely, Rolemaster. My players like to play spell-users. A high-level RM spell-user (in RMSS, without spell bonus items) can cast 6 or so highest-level spells before having to rest. In a typical encounter such a spell-user will cast at least 1 such spell, and frequently more. And the 9-9.15 day therefore is a big issue in our group.

Of course, it is always possible to have any number of encounters in which the PCs don't use their abilities. But such encounters are unlikely to satisfy any threshold of signicance.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> BTW, I consider spellcasters looking towards long-term ramifications to be a good thing, that enhances the game experience.  Obviously we differ here.



As a second postscript, I think you also differ from the 4e (and 3E) designers. I refer again to BTW, I consider spellcasters looking towards long-term ramifications to be a good thing, that enhances the game experience.  Obviously we differ here.[/QUOTE]]Monte Cook's column discussing this very issue. He observes that it was a deliberate design goal of 3E to make wizards just as playable, for new players, as fighters. I added above the thought that "look on and do nothing" is not regarded as a viable player option by the 4e designers. These two considerations mean that 4e will depart even further, in respect of the way wizards play, from your desired style.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, nor that it's a bad thing. But I'm very confident that it is a thing that will happen.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A game rewards players who know how to tip the scales towards their characters by limiting themselves to the smallest number of encounters in a row possible, so that they can approach each encounter at full-power. So long as there is a goodie bag intended to last all day, a crafty player will use the bag as if there's only one encounter and then go rest and recover right away. So rather than use that goodie bag that was meant to be spread out over a day's worth of encounters, the character uses all the best stuff in the first one, goes off to rest, and then repeats later.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That you believe that it is impossible for a module designer in 3.X to present fair-yet-challenging encounters throughout the course of an adventure, whereas this was very, very simple in earlier editions, can be taken as evidence.



As a third postscript, I think the first of the above two quotes captures very well the playstyle of 1st ed AD&D. I don't agree with the second quote entirely - just as an example, I think that Keep on the Borderlands is potentially too hard for 1st level characters. But to the extent to which it is true, it is made true because of the approach to play described in your first post. That is, 1st ed play assumes that players will act cautiously, gather information, carefully marshall their resources and so on.

Modules are written with this in mind - for example, the situations are often internally dynamic, but externally static (thus the GD series assumes that the PCs, if they leave the Steading and retreat to their cave, or if they leave the Underdark and retreat to the surface, are not subject to retribution). Wandering monsters are an essentially random disruption device, but in most modules do not interact with one another, or with the placed encounters, to plan or conspire against the PCs.

Dungeons contain empty rooms, and PCs who hole up in them, using spikes to wedge the door shut, can expect to avoid the bulk of wanderers and rest up without losing the chance to complete the module.

3E is pretty clearly not aimed at this sort of play. It is obvious (at least to me) that neither is 4e. In my view the zeitgeist has changed, and many roleplayers (and potential roleplayers) are looking for something different in a game. It is this mix of different metagame priorities with pure per-day resources that produces the problem of the 15 minute adventuring day. For the reasons I have given, I think that the introduction of per-encounter resources has the potential to better-align the play experience with those metagame priorities.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Color me very unconvinced.

I understand that you can repeat your statements ad infinitum ad nauseum, as can I, but this brings us no closer to a resolution.  Luckily, our positions can be verified within the course of 2 years, and I am perfectly happy to wait that long.

I, for one, do not conflate _deliberate_ design goals with _well thought-out_ or _good_ design goals.

If there is anything _new_ added to the discussion, which I have not already responded to, I'll respond.  

If not, this is me signing off.

(Thread necromancy scheduled for 1 year after the third book releases.)


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

pemerton said:
			
		

> <snip>
> 
> Here is a substantial point of disagreement. Not about your particular example - I also have read the dragon fight summary. But in fact the rationing of actions per round will be _crucial_ to 4e design. That is part of the rationale of going from per-day to per-encounter - by _increasing_ the number of options available to each character in a given round, the intention is to make the _choice_ of which action to take in any given round a more interesting one. At present, fighters have an unlimited supply of actions (assuming they do not run out of hit points) but virtually no choice of actions - they move and attack until the foe stands still, and then they full attack every round. Casters, on the other hand, have much choice of action but an extremely finite supply of actions (ie once they use all their spells they have no meaningful choices left).
> 
> (You may say that casters always have the choice to _do nothing_, that is, to conserve a spell for a later time. While true, I think the 4e designers deliberately exclude this from the list of viable choices, for the simple reason that most people do not find it a virtue in a game to have to skip a turn. I suspect you disagree with the 4e designers here - I will return to that below.)
> 
> Once we accept that the goal is to give each character meaningful choices of actions in a round - thus giving players meaningful choices in each round - it seems obvious to me that it matters hugely, from the point of view of mechanical interest, in which round a given ability is used.
> 
> Suppose, for example, that in round _N_ I choose to defer use of my "second wind", because I believe that (i) I have enough hits to survive into round _N_+1, and therefore that (ii) I should instead this round use my per-encounter ability to add my level to damage as a swift action - thereby perhaps killing the foe and allowing me to conserve my "second wind" because the party healer can heal me without consuming resources. In such a situation something of mechanical interest has happened although it never became prudent to use my per-day resource. The interest is a result not of resource consumption, but of the need to make a decision about resource consumption.
> 
> This also shows that mixing per-day resources with other, non-reducing resources adds a new dimension of interest to the game that is missing at present, namely, the capacity to have interesting decisions about resource use that do not deplete resources.
> 
> It is true that, after the encounter, the players will look back and say "That didn't consume our per-day resources." They may even look back and say "On reflection that was never going to consume our per-day resources." But as long as they do not know that those things are true _during the encounter itself_, the encounter will be of mechanical interest (and so quite unlike the much-derided 10th level fighter vs 4 kobolds).
> 
> To link this back to the key premise in your argument: it is true that, once the fight is over, _if per-day resouces were used it does not matter in which round they were used._ Likewise, once the fight is over, if they were not used it does not matter in which rounds their use was or was not contemplated by the players. But the interest of an encounter is not something which is determined by reflection on it after it is over. It is something which unfolds within the very encounter itself - and during the encounter (i) the players do not know whether or not their per-day resources will end up being consumed or not and (ii) are able to determine whether or not they will be through their own mechanically interesting choices.
> 
> Just as you are puzzled by my failure to believe you, so I am puzzled by your seeming inability to appreciate the dynamic epistemic situation that a player is in during an encounter, and which is (to me) a very obvious and rich source of mechanical interest, even if there is (at the end of it all) no mechanical significance in the sense of resource attrition or accretion.
> 
> <snip>



Very well-put. I think that captured very well what I meant when trying to describe the tactical options available to players on a round-by-round basis.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I, for one, do not conflate _deliberate_ design goals with _well thought-out_ or _good_ design goals.



In this respect you are not unique.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I understand that you can repeat your statements ad infinitum ad nauseum, as can I, but
> <snip>
> 
> this is me signing off.



Fair enough. For whatever reason, you do not accept that mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, _in any round of which_ the players _do not know_ whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, if in the end it does not result in such attrition.

I have GMed games in which interest has been generated by this sort of uncertainty (and the resulting capacity of the players to influence the outcome by their resource-deployment choices). So I don't share your scepticism.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Very well-put. I think that captured very well what I meant when trying to describe the tactical options available to players on a round-by-round basis.



Thanks. I found your posts very helpful for crystallising how it is that a system that mixes per-day and per-encounter resources will generate a type of mechanical interest that the current pure per-day system cannot.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> Fair enough. For whatever reason, you do not accept that mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, _in any round of which_ the players _do not know_ whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, if in the end it does not result in such attrition.





You know what?  Simply because I am unwilling to continue repeating myself forever doesn't mean that it's okay to misrepresent my position.

That's not only rude; it's juvenile.

RC


----------



## IanArgent

Assuming that resource management quanta must be the same as encounter design quanta (and if it's not, why should it not be) - should resource management be primarily encounter-quantized or adventure-quantized? (day-quantized isn't an option, adventures cannot easily be day-quantized).


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You know what?  Simply because I am unwilling to continue repeating myself forever doesn't mean that it's okay to misrepresent my position.
> 
> That's not only rude; it's juvenile.




It's also accurate from where I'm sitting and from what I've read.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It's also accurate from where I'm sitting and from what I've read.




Then either you need to learn to read better, or I need to learn to write better.    

Examine the following:  

"For whatever reason, you do not accept that mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, if in the end it does not result in such attrition."​
An encounter unfolds, "in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition".  This is a win/lose situation.  The players know they might win; they know they might lose.  They do not know which it is going to be.

Compare this to something I said earlier:

"Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during the battle, then the battle is consequential."​
Indeed, if you examine my analysis (and I have no desire to go back to find it; someone with Search can do that if they so desire), you will see that I suggest that there will be an increase of win/lose encounters so as to generate mechanical interest (reach the mechanical threshold of significance), which could previously be attained without requiring a win/lose scenario.

I do not accept that mechanical interest can result _*in the long term*_ from encounters in which the players _know_ that resource-attrition will not occur, and which they cannot lose.  In the model thus far described for 4e, this means an increase in win/lose encounters will probably occur.  IOW, DMs will try to make battles mechanically interesting by presenting scenarios in which, in any round "the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition".

I do not accept that, having played the game for a reasonable amount of time, that players will not know which encounters are likely to be win/lose, and which encounters are merely "fluff".

If you are currently experiencing the 15-minute adventuring day, it is because your players are using major assets on every encounter that seems remotely threatening, and then resting to recover those assets.

I do not accept that, _*unless some mechanism exists to prevent resting to reset per-day assets*_, that the same players are going to be faced with a win/lose encounter "in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition" without using their major assets, and then resting to recover those assets.

IOW, it is the ability of the DM to limit "resetting" major resources that determines whether or not prudent play includes moderation or not.   _*Because the players control a large part of resource attrition, the DM*_* cannot set up a situation in which the players do not know from round to round whether or not there will be resource attrition -- the players can always decide that there will be resource attrition in any game system that includes resource attrition.*

So, certainly, mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, even if in the end it does not result in such attrition, _*so long as they are given a reason to attempt to conserve resources*_.

Unless the players are given a reason to do so, it is never prudent when facing a win/lose encounter to _*not*_ use per-day resources.

You are in a dungeon.  You get into a fight that has, say, a 10% chance of leaving a party member dead each round.  You can use:

*  At will power, 5% chance of ending the fight this round.
*  Per encounter power, 25% chance of ending the fight this round, and brings up the chance of at will power to end fight.
*  Per day power, 75% chance of ending the fight this round, and brings up the chance of at will and per encounter powers to end fight.

(Obviously, I am just making these numbers up, and obviously this is somewhat exagerated in order to make a point.  But it represents the problem exactly in kind, if not in specifics.)

If you know that you can rest and reset your per-day power without danger or cost, and you choose not to use it, you're certainly not making your best tactical choice.  If, however, you know that you _*cannot*_ simply reset the per-day power, and that you might face more difficult encounters _today_, with whatever resources you have left, then you are faced with an actual decision.

The 15-minute adventuring day problem was created by a combination of a sharply narrowed range of mechanically significant encounters, coupled with the idea that it was "unfun" to prevent PCs from resting to recharge.  The narrowed range of encounters makes it more desireable to use your big guns (because, if a monster can affect you, it can probably kill your); the ease of resting removes any counter argument to using your big guns (because once used they can simply be reset).

The new design as described narrows the range even farther, as DMs institute more win/lose scenarios because there is no longer any such thing as an encounter that uses 1/4 resources.....or for that matter, an encounter that both unfolds, "in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition" which is _*not*_ a win/lose scenario.  *And, faced with a win/lose scenario, smart players use their best resources every time, unless there is a very good reason not to.*

But, of course, from where your sitting, what pemerton wrote is a completely accurate description of a position that, apparently, neither you nor he bothered to read before responding to.    

Again, simply because I am unwilling to continue repeating myself forever doesn't mean that it's okay to misrepresent my position.

That's not only rude; it's juvenile. 

You'll pardon me if I am unimpressed.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> <snip>



I have both read and understand what you're saying, RC. However, you have not seemed to understand what I've been trying to communicate.

Your claim is that the mechanical threshold of significance for determining whether or not an encounter is relevant (in a mechanical sense) is whether or not the party has expended resources which, if expended, will not be available in a later encounter. Thus the players are forced to manage their limited resources carefully or be unable to affect later encounters. If there is no attrition, then an encounter is simply irrelevant because it in no mechanical way impacts a later encounter. This is what you seem to have been arguing.

I, in turn, have claimed that your definition of "mechanical thresholds of significance" is insufficient. Just as you have in the above post, you completely disregard the depletion of resources within the only garunteed encounter within a given rest period: the encounter the PCs are currently egaged in. I've pointed out that if you don't manage your pool of resources wisely within the time-frame of a single encounter, it can indeed have very significant mechanical impact on the outcome of that encounter. And I will point out again that the encounter I'm describing is the only 100% garunteed encounter in the day. The hypothetical encounters which may or may not happen are certainly relevant, but so too is the garunteed encounter the PCs are already taking part in. This is a valid mechanical threshold of significance, and one which is more applicable to a wider spectrum of gamersout there.

Rather than rehash my entire point (which you have yet to respond to), I'll post it again:



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> This leads me to conclude once again that your definition of "mechanical significance" is flawed. To claim that what happens within the context of an encounter is "irrelevant" in light of this definition can only lead one to conclude that your definition is not sufficient for the discussion.
> 
> I would suggest that in its place, mechanical threshold of significance must take into account the fact that it is an *encounter* in which resources are expended, and whether or not the expenditure of resources within the context of any given encounter has significant mechanical impact upon the outcome of that particular encounter and the PCs' abilities to further continue in it. It's less relevant how an encounter impacts upon subsequent encounters in a given day because those encounters are entirely variable based on playstyle and context.
> 
> Indeed, a designer can't predict how many encounters a party will face in light of a wide audience such as D&D enjoys. A designer can't assume that a party will face just one or as many as ten encounters. The optimal solution is to assume that within the fundamental unit of the challenge, the encounter itself, the PCs are on equal footing, and that the crux of managing resources makes that encounter fun. It's not a delayed fun that may or may not happen, such as saving your fireball for an encounter that might not even be coming. It's not an unbalancing reward like going nova and then throwing up a *rope trick* after every encounter so your spellcaster dominates. It maximizes that particular encounter, the only encounter a designer can know a party will have within any given unit of time. It's an invalid assumption to assume that all playstyles will face a similar ratio of resouce-consuming encounters in a given day, and the per-encounter system acknowledges this and instead focuses on the one encounter that a party is garunteed to have: the one they're in right now.




pemerton similarly argued:



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Here is a substantial point of disagreement. Not about your particular example - I also have read the dragon fight summary. But in fact the rationing of actions per round will be crucial to 4e design. That is part of the rationale of going from per-day to per-encounter - by increasing the number of options available to each character in a given round, the intention is to make the choice of which action to take in any given round a more interesting one. At present, fighters have an unlimited supply of actions (assuming they do not run out of hit points) but virtually no choice of actions - they move and attack until the foe stands still, and then they full attack every round. Casters, on the other hand, have much choice of action but an extremely finite supply of actions (ie once they use all their spells they have no meaningful choices left).
> 
> (You may say that casters always have the choice to do nothing, that is, to conserve a spell for a later time. While true, I think the 4e designers deliberately exclude this from the list of viable choices, for the simple reason that most people do not find it a virtue in a game to have to skip a turn. I suspect you disagree with the 4e designers here - I will return to that below.)
> 
> Once we accept that the goal is to give each character meaningful choices of actions in a round - thus giving players meaningful choices in each round - it seems obvious to me that it matters hugely, from the point of view of mechanical interest, in which round a given ability is used.
> 
> Suppose, for example, that in round N I choose to defer use of my "second wind", because I believe that (i) I have enough hits to survive into round N+1, and therefore that (ii) I should instead this round use my per-encounter ability to add my level to damage as a swift action - thereby perhaps killing the foe and allowing me to conserve my "second wind" because the party healer can heal me without consuming resources. In such a situation something of mechanical interest has happened although it never became prudent to use my per-day resource. The interest is a result not of resource consumption, but of the need to make a decision about resource consumption.
> 
> This also shows that mixing per-day resources with other, non-reducing resources adds a new dimension of interest to the game that is missing at present, namely, the capacity to have interesting decisions about resource use that do not deplete resources.
> 
> It is true that, after the encounter, the players will look back and say "That didn't consume our per-day resources." They may even look back and say "On reflection that was never going to consume our per-day resources." But as long as they do not know that those things are true during the encounter itself, the encounter will be of mechanical interest (and so quite unlike the much-derided 10th level fighter vs 4 kobolds).
> 
> To link this back to the key premise in your argument: it is true that, once the fight is over, if per-day resouces were used it does not matter in which round they were used. Likewise, once the fight is over, if they were not used it does not matter in which rounds their use was or was not contemplated by the players. But the interest of an encounter is not something which is determined by reflection on it after it is over. It is something which unfolds within the very encounter itself - and during the encounter (i) the players do not know whether or not their per-day resources will end up being consumed or not and (ii) are able to determine whether or not they will be through their own mechanically interesting choices.




You have yet to respond to the validity of these arguments with anything other than handwaving them away as "unconvincing" or a adopting "we'll have to wait and see" position. Specifically, you have failed to explain how the depletion of resources within the encounter, and the decision of if/when to use those limited resources (Whether per-encounter, per-day, per-year, or per-episode-of-Law-and-Order) is in and of itself mechanically insignificant. If I have come across has hostile, you have my appologies, as this was not my intent. I simply cannot understand how one would reject the points above calling the round-by-round choices for using limited resources a mechanical threshold of significance, and would greatly appreciate a response from you on this subject.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I've pointed out that if you don't manage your pool of resources wisely within the time-frame of a single encounter, it can indeed have very significant mechanical impact on the outcome of that encounter.




"very significant mechanical impact" = somebody getting killed?  Otherwise, what would the significance be?

I don't think that these somewhat general statements accurately reflect what's going on.  A blog entry by James Wyatt that was referenced on this thread (a later one with a given link) seems to contradict what you're saying, for example.  He was talking about his WoW experience and that basically without long term resource attrition to consider, he was basically just going down the list of most powerful to least powerful abilities and firing them off.  

The implication that I always see is that somehow encounter-level resource usage is like some sort of chess game and that people are careful about how they use them.  But look, for example, at what people say about the "1-encounter per day" situation in 3E.  The problem that people identify is that wizards are basically overpowered in that kind of environment.  And why?  Because they're "nova-ing".  And why do they nova?  Because they aren't really managing their resources as carefully as statements like you're sometimes imply.  They don't need to, I don't blame them.  It makes more tactical sense to do whatever you need to in order to kill whatever is in front of you when there is nothing else to consider.  The risks IME of a hidden enemy are less than the risks of allowing an enemy you see and has closed with you to continue to act round after round.


----------



## apoptosis

Truth be told I think a better example of per-encounter resource use management would be warranted.



> Once we accept that the goal is to give each character meaningful choices of actions in a round - thus giving players meaningful choices in each round - it seems obvious to me that it matters hugely, from the point of view of mechanical interest, in which round a given ability is used.
> 
> Suppose, for example, that in round N I choose to defer use of my "second wind", because I believe that (i) I have enough hits to survive into round N+1, and therefore that (ii) I should instead this round use my per-encounter ability to add my level to damage as a swift action - thereby perhaps killing the foe and allowing me to conserve my "second wind" because the party healer can heal me without consuming resources. In such a situation something of mechanical interest has happened although it never became prudent to use my per-day resource. The interest is a result not of resource consumption, but of the need to make a decision about resource consumption.




From my understanding of this example (i am pretty sure you made the abilities up) there was no real decision to make. If you didn't have enough hits and were out of the encounter you would have to use second wind (otherwise you are out of the encounter). If you are in the encounter and have enough hits the only real choice would be to use the added level damage bonus (there would be no reason to use the second wind) so there isn't really much tactical resource management going on.

In general I tend to agree with RC, but maybe some better tactical examples of per-encounter resource management might help. Then the decision would be whether the examples are so specific (by specific i do not detailed but so circumstantial)  that they would rarely occur.


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> "very significant mechanical impact" = somebody getting killed?  Otherwise, what would the significance be?



Whether or not a given PC drops is indeed a significant mechanical impact. But also whether or not the PCs defeated the enemy and got their loot. And also what options remained to the PCs when the last bad guy ran out of hit points. If you're a fighter down to his last Death From Above for the encounter, or a wizard down to his last Fireball. then the whole encounter seemed pretty significant all the way through. There might not have even been a significant threat that the PCs were going to die, but if you're running out of attacks to fling at the enemy, then every spent resource seems very significant.

And remember, we're likely not talking about the deep pool of resources that 3e characters enjoy and are expected to manage over the course of the day. 4e will likely make the pools of per-encounter resources much shallower, meaning every single time you use one, it's a significant expenditure.



> I don't think that these somewhat general statements accurately reflect what's going on.  A blog entry by James Wyatt that was referenced on this thread (a later one with a given link) seems to contradict what you're saying, for example.  He was talking about his WoW experience and that basically without long term resource attrition to consider, he was basically just going down the list of most powerful to least powerful abilities and firing them off.
> 
> The implication that I always see is that somehow encounter-level resource usage is like some sort of chess game and that people are careful about how they use them.  But look, for example, at what people say about the "1-encounter per day" situation in 3E.  The problem that people identify is that wizards are basically overpowered in that kind of environment.  And why?  Because they're "nova-ing".  And why do they nova?  Because they aren't really managing their resources as carefully as statements like you're sometimes imply.  They don't need to, I don't blame them.  It makes more tactical sense to do whatever you need to in order to kill whatever is in front of you when there is nothing else to consider.  The risks IME of a hidden enemy are less than the risks of allowing an enemy you see and has closed with you to continue to act round after round.




And this argument swings both ways, as you've demonstrated with your nova-ing example. Players can approach either system with the tactical depth of a sledgehammer to the skull. The implication I always see is that somehow day-level resource useage is like some sort of chess game and that people are careful about how they use them.


----------



## Jackelope King

apoptosis said:
			
		

> Truth be told I think a better example of per-encounter resource use management would be warranted.



Consider this one from _Iron Heroes_, then.

An Archer has the ability to attack his foes in numerous ways beyond simply shooting. If he takes careful aim, he can deal additional damage ("Deadly Shot"), or inflict his foe with a penalty to attacks ("Disrupting Shot"), or even rain arrows down upon a small area of the battlefield (peppering everyone with attacks; "Storm of Arrows"). He's limited in the use of these abilities (and the strength of these abilities) to the number of tokens he has in his aim pool. He can always spend actions to take aim and build up his aim pool too.

So let's say the archer finds himself and his friends fighting a band of brigands and their hard-bitten captain. The archer must focus his attention on one enemy at a time, building up an aim pool. Right away, he's faced with decisions: should he focus on trying to take out the captain, or is his action better spent trying to build up an aim pool against one of the other bandits?

After spending a round building up aim tokens against one enemy (say the captain, 4 tokens for taking a full round to aim), he's presented with a new choice: should he spend some or all of his tokens, and which ability should he use? If he decides to use the Storm of Arrows he can strike the captain and the two bandits fighting shoulder to shoulder with him, but his damage against the captain will be limited. Or he can spend two of his tokens and deal additional damage to the captain this round while conserving some tokens to use to do the same thing next round with Deadly Shot, though the other bandits won't be affected, and the higher damage is a wash if he misses. Or he could spend all of his tokens on a Disrupting Shot to prevent the captain from hurting his allies as easily with that big flail he's carrying. Or he can spend more time aiming so that next round, his shot can be even more effective.

Fast forward a few rounds. Now three of the bandits are dead, and only the captain and his two lieutenants are left, and they're being pushed back across the bridge, trying to escape. Now, since he's on the defensive and less of a threat, the choice is more obvious: take him down as fast as possible before he gets away. Keep firing off Deadly Shots and hope one drops him before he gets away.

There is no real "strongest ability" here. Since it takes fewer rounds to build up, sometimes it's simply better to use a weaker ability. In other situations, it's better to take your time and line up the shot before you fire so as to inflict the most damage possible. And still other times it's prudent to just give up your aim pool against one opponent and focus on a new one (as your current target might be about to be on the recieving end of the now-enraged berserker's very large, very sharp axe).

After the encounter ends, the archer hasn't "run out" of his ability to use any of these options. Indeed, if twenty more encounters happened, he'd be able to use these abilities in each and every one. But within the context of each of those encounters, he's presented with different scenarios and different foes, and needs to consider how best to use his limited pool of aim tokens within that encounter. Maybe in a later encounter, he's faced with a harrier (among other opponents). The archer would do well to focus on someone other than the harrier, since the archer can aim more effectively against oppoents standing still than he can against someone like the harrier, who gains his abilities from moving quickly around the battlefield. The archer is faced with interesting choices of how to marshal his resources during an encounter, both in how to build them up (spending actions aiming) and then in how to unleash them.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> There is no real "strongest ability" here.



This is a matter of definition of "resource management".  To you, it seems that any tactical decision involves a resource if the words are used broadly enough.  Stepping into a threatened square in order to improve my circumstances then becomes a matter of managing the resource of "space"?

Deciding whether to rain down arrows on mooks or take a single powerful shot against a leader is a tactical decision.  Such a decision would exist in a "per-day" resources situation as well.  The core argument I've tried to make is that "per-encounter" resources removes a dimension of strategy from the game.  That doesn't mean that you wouldn't continue to face problems in a "per-encounter" game, it's just one less problem.

And implicit in your example, as it seems with every example, is a tangible threat of death from that encounter.  Otherwise the choice of whether to rain arrows or take a single precise shot is relatively meaningless because you're going to win the encounter either way.


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> This is a matter of definition of "resource management".  To you, it seems that any tactical decision involves a resource if the words are used broadly enough.  Stepping into a threatened square in order to improve my circumstances then becomes a matter of managing the resource of "space"?



And to yourself and RC, anything which doesn't reset within the framework of 1 day or more isn't a resource. Certainly the tactical consideration of when to use a limited resource is interesting, but I thought I was very clear in this example that the archer only has a limited number of aim tokens at any given time, which he can build up or spend depending on his actions.



> Deciding whether to rain down arrows on mooks or take a single powerful shot against a leader is a tactical decision.  Such a decision would exist in a "per-day" resources situation as well.  The core argument I've tried to make is that "per-encounter" resources removes a dimension of strategy from the game.  That doesn't mean that you wouldn't continue to face problems in a "per-encounter" game, it's just one less problem.



And a per-day resource system includes arbitrary restrictions on how many encounters you can have, creating disparity in power level between casters and non-casters. I'd much rather have a per-encounter system and lose the fun of daily resource management than have a per-day system and be forced to tread carefully so as to keep all the classes balanced. I also question whether the same level of tactical decision is still there, since there's less of a pressing need to manage your fireballs if you have four of them in your pocket versus if you only have a single one available to you in any given encounter. I've yet to see a valid counerargument against this.



> And implicit in your example, as it seems with every example, is a tangible threat of death from that encounter.  Otherwise the choice of whether to rain arrows or take a single precise shot is relatively meaningless because you're going to win the encounter either way.



Actually, I thought I was pretty clear that in this particular example, the enemy was actually running away, and the decision became one of "take him down before he gets away".


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Whether or not a given PC drops is indeed a significant mechanical impact. But also whether or not the PCs defeated the enemy and got their loot.




Ok, these two cover the "you die, or they die" situation.  I think we all agree that a per-encounter situation has this dimension to it.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And also what options remained to the PCs when the last bad guy ran out of hit points.




This is sort of a "tree falls in the forest does it make a sound" situation.  Why does it matter what resources a PC has when he's not fighting someone?  It only matters if the encounter isn't over.  Once it's "over", by definition, all those resources are back.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> If you're a fighter down to his last Death From Above for the encounter, or a wizard down to his last Fireball. then the whole encounter seemed pretty significant all the way through.




The premise here is insufficient IMO to establish your conclusion.  I get two meteor strikes per day and I use one against a kobold.  I'm down to one meteor strike but I don't think you'd call the kobold encounter significant.  AFAICT you're making an unstated assumption here.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> There might not have even been a significant threat that the PCs were going to die, but if you're running out of attacks to fling at the enemy, then every spent resource seems very significant.




Why would it be?  If I'm not facing a significant threat of death, then the depletion of my resources doesn't mean anything to me.  If running out of resources means a significant chance of death, and you're running out of resources, then the logical conclusion is that you *are* facing a significant chance of death.  It seems paradoxical to me to be otherwise.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And remember, we're likely not talking about the deep pool of resources that 3e characters enjoy and are expected to manage over the course of the day. 4e will likely make the pools of per-encounter resources much shallower, meaning every single time you use one, it's a significant expenditure.




It's significant only when not having them means you're going to die.  Implicit in all of this reasoning is a significant chance of death at the per-encounter level.  Without that, it's like a character with two fireballs, AC 1000, and 1000 hitpoints fighting 30 goblins.  That's a situation where there's no significant chance of death and yet I'm probably going to use a fireball which is a 50% expenditure of my top resources.  It's not an interesting encounter if my fireballs are going to reset themselves at the end of the encounter.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And this argument swings both ways, as you've demonstrated with your nova-ing example. Players can approach either system with the tactical depth of a sledgehammer to the skull.




The DMs complaining about nova-ing are actually implicitly recognizing that it works.  The "sledgehammer to the skull" analogy carries with it an implication AFAICT that is not true.  Nova-ing makes a lot of sense, and is a sensible tactic, that's why players keep doing it over and over.  In fact, in a medieval fantasy game a "sledgehammer to the skull" is probably pretty effective too 



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The implication I always see is that somehow day-level resource useage is like some sort of chess game and that people are careful about how they use them.




They are careful, and least in the experience of those of us advocating for them.  There is an important issue of wizards nova-ing in the per-day situation, only because of the mismatch between wizards and fighters - not because of the existence of the per-day paradigm.

The reason that players are careful IME is that a day is a far longer, and more significant period of time to have to think about than a minute.  A player's ability to forsee their resource needs, when an encounter is over, for the next 60 seconds, is far more accurate than it is to forecast it over a period of time hundreds of times as long.  Without the uncertainty that the day-long time period provides, most of the uncertainty is going to come down to "is this encounter going to kill me", which has been one of my points from the beginning and seems to be at the core of every description of a per-encounter paradigm, often implicitly.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And to yourself and RC, anything which doesn't reset within the framework of 1 day or more isn't a resource. Certainly the tactical consideration of when to use a limited resource is interesting, but I thought I was very clear in this example that the archer only has a limited number of aim tokens at any given time, which he can build up or spend depending on his actions.




Yes, but if fear of death is not a significant part of the encounter than the expenditure of the tokens are meaningless.  Consider - we wouldn't have as much to debate if you would agree that a per-encounter paradigm shifts the DMs encounter design focus to make sure that each encounter carries with it a measurable chance of PC death.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And a per-day resource system includes arbitrary restrictions on how many encounters you can have,




Calling it 'arbitrary' here is unwarranted/misleading it seems.  PCs have an arbitrary restriction on the speed at which they can move, for example.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> creating disparity in power level between casters and non-casters.




That disparity is not created by the existence of daily resources, but instead a disparity in the amount and power of the resources.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'd much rather have a per-encounter system and lose the fun of daily resource management than have a per-day system and be forced to tread carefully so as to keep all the classes balanced.




I agree with your goal.  I just think that the per-day situation doesn't create this.  It's like saying that one character class gets d2 for hitpoints and the other gets d100 for hitpoints, but the problem is the hitpoint mechanic.  The problem is actually class design.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I also question whether the same level of tactical decision is still there, since there's less of a pressing need to manage your fireballs if you have four of them in your pocket versus if you only have a single one available to you in any given encounter. I've yet to see a valid counerargument against this.




Convincing and valid are two different things.  Counterargument against what?  Against the fact that if you have 4 fireballs, and you use one, that you have 3 left?  I will concede that basic arithmetic agrees with you here.  However, your other assumptions and your conclusion are not stated so there's nothing to argue with.  Suggest that having 3 fireballs left instead of 4 is an insignificant situation in a per-day paradigm, for example, and you've got a tougher case to establish IMO.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Actually, I thought I was pretty clear that in this particular example, the enemy was actually running away, and the decision became one of "take him down before he gets away".




Oh, ok, I missed that.  Your example is one of a class of "ticking timebomb" type situations.  Your facing a kobold, who is not himself a significant threat but he has his finger on a button that can blow up the world.  Or whatever.

These situations exist in both per-day and per-encounter.  What I don't see is how a per-encounter situation enhances this, or makes it exclusive.  Even with per-day resources I'm still choosing from those resources the tactically optimal way of keeping the bandits from running for help.  There's no real fundemental difference in the decision at that level.

The "per-day" resource situation though, carries with it the additional consideration of the fact that if I use a fireball against the fleeing bandits in order to keep them from raising an alarm, that I won't have it later.  It's possible that it might actually make sense to let the bandits escape because saving the fireball and using it against bandits+BBEG might make more sense.  In the per-encounter resource none of that matters - you blast away with whatever your tactically best option is and there are no consequences outside of making a wrong tactical decision (as you would in 3E as well).


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Deciding whether to rain down arrows on mooks or take a single powerful shot against a leader is a tactical decision.  Such a decision would exist in a "per-day" resources situation as well.



The second sentence strikes me as false. In a pure per-day resource system that choice exists only if the resources remain available. In an at-will systemt that choice is available every round. In a per-encounter system that choice becomes more interesting than in an at-will system, because it is there to be made in every encounter, but making the choice once then affects the dynamics of one's future choices for the encounter.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> It's like saying that one character class gets d2 for hitpoints and the other gets d100 for hitpoints, but the problem is the hitpoint mechanic.  The problem is actually class design.



To bring fighters and wizards into parity requires not only toning down spell power. It also requires giving wizards something to do every round - ie increasing their avaible resources. The most obvious way to do this is by giving wizards at-will abilities, or a suite of per-encounter abilities. So given the way wizards work at present, I just don't see how you can divorce the question of class design from that of resource management paradigm.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Your example is one of a class of "ticking timebomb" type situations.  Your facing a kobold, who is not himself a significant threat but he has his finger on a button that can blow up the world.  Or whatever.
> 
> These situations exist in both per-day and per-encounter.  What I don't see is how a per-encounter situation enhances this, or makes it exclusive.  Even with per-day resources I'm still choosing from those resources the tactically optimal way of keeping the bandits from running for help.  There's no real fundemental difference in the decision at that level.
> 
> The "per-day" resource situation though, carries with it the additional consideration of the fact that if I use a fireball against the fleeing bandits in order to keep them from raising an alarm, that I won't have it later.  It's possible that it might actually make sense to let the bandits escape because saving the fireball and using it against bandits+BBEG might make more sense.  In the per-encounter resource none of that matters - you blast away with whatever your tactically best option is and there are no consequences outside of making a wrong tactical decision (as you would in 3E as well).



There are a couple of differences. In the current system, it is the wizard who has to conserve the fireball, while the fighters plink away at the bandit with arrows, or mount their horses and ride after him, or whatever. The 4e designers take the view that this is not fun for the player of the wizard PC. They are therefore looking for a system in which the wizard also has something to do which will have a significant impact on the resolution of the encounter.

A second difference is this: in a system which introduces per-encounter abilities, it is easier to design the time-bomb scenario, because the desinger does not need to worry that the encounters will deplete so many resources that the PCs have no chance of actually stopping the bomb when they find it. This is just a particular instance of the general proposition that a move away from per-day resources removes obstacles to the use of other thresholds of signficance.

A related consequence is the converse: if the PCs manage to skip some of the intermediate encounters they do not arrive at the bomb so tanked that the encounter poses no challenge. For 1st-ed style play this is obviously anathema - clever operational play is not generating a reward for the players, of delivering them a walk-over encounter! But 4e play is obviously not interested in supporting that style of play. It wants the _encounter_ to be interesting, regardless (mechanically) of what preceded it, or is to follow it. In this respect 4e is just continuing the trend of 3E.

I do not believe that 4e will be able to do everything 1st ed could do. But I think it is equally false to claim that 1st ed (or 3E) can do everything that a system that includes per-encounter abilities can do.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Examine the following:
> 
> "For whatever reason, you do not accept that mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, if in the end it does not result in such attrition."​
> An encounter unfolds, "in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition".  This is a win/lose situation.  The players know they might win; they know they might lose.  They do not know which it is going to be.



Let's just stop there. You are making the following inference: because the players do not know, at time _T_, whether or not they will win or lose, it is therefore (objectively) a win/lose situation.

This inference is unsound, for two reasons. First, the players might be ignorant. This is a relevant consideration, because the 4e designers have stressed that the new monster build rules will make it more difficult for the players to predict the character of an encounter.

I note that you reject this first reason:



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I do not accept that, having played the game for a reasonable amount of time, that players will not know which encounters are likely to be win/lose, and which encounters are merely "fluff".



I'm not sure why you are so confident about this - my own experience in playing RPGs leads me to a different view - but in any event it is of relevance only to the first of two reasons for the unsoundness of the inference above.

The second, and more important reason, is this: it may be that the situation is only win/lose _if the players choose poorly subsequent to time _T_._ Or to put it conversely, as far as I can see the point of the 4e mechanics is to generate mechanical interest in the following manner:

By making effective choices about the deployment of their resources, the players are able to bring it about that encounters are not ones in which their PCs have a significant chance of losing, and are not ones in which their PCs have to use their per-day abilities.​
It is thus simply false, in my view, that mechanical interest depends upon encounters being win/lose. Rather, it depends upon them being ones in which the players do not know what the outcome will be until they make their choices - but those choices, if made rationally, bring it about that the PCs win. Both I and Jackalope King have made this point several times. You appear to deny it. Hence my summary of your apparent denial.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I do not accept that mechanical interest can result _*in the long term*_ from encounters in which the players _know_ that resource-attrition will not occur, and which they cannot lose.



My point is: an encounter unfolds over time. The epistemic situation of the players is a changing one. Furthermore, the threat posed to them by the encounter is something that they, _through their choices about resource deployment_, are able to influence. From the fact that, in hindsight, the PCs had no chance of losing, it does not follow that, at any given time, the players know this. For example, the hindsight judgement may depend upon the knowledge that the players made tactically optimal choices. At the time at which the players are actually making those choices, they are unlikely to experience them as uninteresting, especially as they will not able to be fully confident of the tactical optimality of those choices until the end of the encounter.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In the model thus far described for 4e, this means an increase in win/lose encounters will probably occur.  IOW, DMs will try to make battles mechanically interesting by presenting scenarios in which, in any round "the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition".



The equation suggested by "IOW" does not in fact obtain. An encounter can be one in which the players do not know, at the outset, whether or not it will result in resource attrition, and yet not be one which is, if properly played, a win/lose encounter. The interest is generated by the need for proper play. I believe many game players find the proper play of a game interesting.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> If you're a fighter down to his last Death From Above for the encounter, or a wizard down to his last Fireball. then the whole encounter seemed pretty significant all the way through. There might not have even been a significant threat that the PCs were going to die, but if you're running out of attacks to fling at the enemy, then every spent resource seems very significant.





			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Why would it be? If I'm not facing a significant threat of death, then the depletion of my resources doesn't mean anything to me. If running out of resources means a significant chance of death, and you're running out of resources, then the logical conclusion is that you *are* facing a significant chance of death. It seems paradoxical to me to be otherwise.



The claim "If I'm not facing a significant threat of death, then the depletion of my resources doesn't mean anything to me" is false.

To give a parallel example: the claim "If I'm not facing a significant threat of divorce, then the effort I make in my marriage doesn't mean antyhing" is obviously false, for the obvious reason that the effort I am making in my marriage might be the reason why I am not facing a significant threat of divorce.

Another example from a different field. I often have philosophical and legal discussions with my undergraduate students. With some students, whatever argument I put, good or bad, they will not be able to engage with it in an interesting fashion. Those discussions can be classed as "mechanically uninteresting" for me. On the other hand, some discussion actually require me to put my intellectual skills to work, and require me to deploy my best arguments in an intelligent way in order to defend my position. In such discussions I am typically still in no danger of "losing": very few undergraduate students have sufficient mastery of the discipline (be it philosophy or law) to be able to knock down the arguments that I am able to put up. But such discussions are not "mechanically uninteresting" - I find them very interesting, and indeed they're one of the best parts of my job, precisely because in order for me to defend my position I have to do some interesting thinking.

Similarly, as I have been arguing for several posts now, if the decisions that the players have to make about the deployment of their resources make a significant difference to whether or not they experience the threat of death (or the threat of per-day resource depletion) then those decisions have mechanical interest even if, _once those decisions have been successfully made_ it turns out that the PCs win is more-or-less inevitable. The interest arises because the players have to make choices on which their PC's fates hinge.

It is, of course, crucial that those choices be genuine ones (in the sense that for the typical player there are a range of options to choose from, each of which is at least plausible). This requires good design. There's no reason to think that the 4e designers are incapable of this.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> Truth be told I think a better example of per-encounter resource use management would be warranted.



I've tried pretty hard with a couple of 1000+-word posts. It's hard, because the game isn't released yet and I don't own SWSE. I've done my best to sketch something logical around what little bit of information is out there.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> From my understanding of this example (i am pretty sure you made the abilities up) there was no real decision to make. If you didn't have enough hits and were out of the encounter you would have to use second wind (otherwise you are out of the encounter). If you are in the encounter and have enough hits the only real choice would be to use the added level damage bonus (there would be no reason to use the second wind) so there isn't really much tactical resource management going on.



I don't know what your gaming experience is, so I don't know where you're coming from here. Suffice it to say that I think the question in an encounter, of trading off healing versus damage infliction, is a tactically interesting one. It depends on a good sense of probabilities, a good sense of where you and your enemy are in terms of hit point reserves and damage capability, a good sense of where the party healer is and what s/he is able to do for you next round, and so on.

If you're not persuaded by that, I will give another example drawn from RM. Warriors in RM (and HARP) have access to Adrenal Move skills. These are skills which (i) on a successful roll give a combat buff, (ii) suffer an increasing penalty to the roll each round to maintain the buff, and (iii) on a failed roll leave the character at a penalty to all actions which is proportionate to the number of rounds for which the Adrenal Move was sustained, and which reduces each round at a constant rate.

As a result of these 3 features, there are a number of different ways in which to use Adrenal Moves. A fighter can go in and out, buffing for a round and then wearing a (relatively minor) penalty for the next round. Or s/he can sustain the Move. In the latter case, if the combat lasts long enough s/he might choose to come out of the Move at the point at which failure is getting quite likely, and the penalty is not enough to prevent effective defence - at this point going into full parry, effectively doing no more damage in the combat but having no serious danger of death. Or if the combat is one which is very hard for the party to win, s/he can just keep trying to sustain the Move until she fails, at which point s/he is hors de combat and not able to parry very well either.

Having GMed RM games for over 15 years in which fighters have used these skills, I can say that the choices they give rise to make for interesting game play situations. One of my players - and the one who makes the most sophisticated use of these mechanics - did his honours in the mathematics of optimisation, and likes to build spreadsheet models for various categories of encounter in order to plan out his PC's tactics. Adrenal Moves aren't the only factor that he takes account of - RM has a lot of numerically complex and interacting mechanics, including the choice each round of the balance between attack and defence - but they are part of it.

Given that the 4e designers are (overall) probably better game designers than Terry Amthor and Coleman Charlton, I'm sure they will be able to come up with suites of abilities at least as good.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Unless the players are given a reason to do so, it is never prudent when facing a win/lose encounter to _*not*_ use per-day resources.



The truth of this sentence turns entirely on what those resources are. If, for example, the wizard's per-day resource is a Teleport spell, then it is not prudent to use that when facing a win/lose encounter unless (i) it is the start of the encounter and the players believe that by teleporting out their PCs will be able to subsequently return to the encounter better equipped for victory, or (ii) the party is losing the encounter and therefore need to escape. One of these things may often be the case, but I don't think one or the other will always be true.

I have already canvassed a fighter's "second wind" in earlier posts. Again, it is not the sort of ability with which one would start an encounter.

If the per-day resources are simply bigger badder attacks, then what you say is true. As I have said in earlier posts, and earlier in this post, it all depends on the design of the suites of abilities.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> certainly, mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, even if in the end it does not result in such attrition, _*so long as they are given a reason to attempt to conserve resources*_.



This presupposes that it will always be prudent to lead with per day resources. I have contested that. But let's  return to the problem of the 9-9.15 adventuring day.

Mechanically, I see the problem this way. To have a meaningful effect on an encounter, a wizard typically has to cast a spell of somewhere near his/her maximum spell level. A wizard does not have more than 4 to 8 such spells. Therefore, the first encounter of the day is either one in which the wizard goes nova, thus overshadowing the fighters in that encounter, or is one in which the wizard does nothing for one or more rounds. The 4e designers clearly take the view that the latter is an option that provides a poor play experience for the wizard's player - and I assume that the typical play experience bears this out, with the players of wizards opting to do something each round, and thus nova-ing.

After 1 or 2 encounters, then, the wizard has nothing left to do. Thus the party rests. Furthermore, to make those encounters interesting in the face of the wizard's nova-ing, the GM ramps up the EL to somewhere above that of the party - and in these encounters, the overshadowing of the fighter by the wizard only increases.

One solution to this state of affairs is the 1st ed one. The players of wizards are encouraged to hold back, not acting in many rounds, conserving their resources for when they are crucial. Wandering monsters and other constraints on resting support this solution. It is a solution which 3E has obviously abandoned and which 4e will not embrace.

An alternative solution is to make all abilities at-will. In such a system, a wizard would use a wizard's blast every round just as a fighter swings his/her sword every round. This solution, in order to generate mechanically interesting challenges, has to go to win/lose encounters (and presumably this is how 3E is playing once one embraces the one-encounter-per-day paradigm). As an alternative, of course, it might look to other thresholds of signficance - and at this point a genuine at-will mechanic is preferable to a one-encounter-per-day mechanic, because the latter just imposes a pointless constraint on those other thresholds of significance.

A variant of the at-will solution is one which throws per-encounter abilities into the mix. These are then able to generate the sort of mechanical interest that I described above in relation to Adrenal Moves in RM and HARP, but also do not get in the way of other thresholds of significance.

4e seems to be going for a mix of this, plus per-day resources. As I've already acknowledged, if this model is to avoid the one-encounter-per-day problem, then it will be crucial that it not always be rational to lead with per-day resources. This is, as I have noted above, in part a question of design.

But it is not only a question of design. Because the availability of a wide range of non-per-day resources means that a wider range of alternative thresholds of significance become viable, it also becomes possible to introduce a wider range of reasons, derived from those other thresholds of significance, as to why it may be rational to conserve per-day resources. For example, it is obvious that a party which conserves per-day resources may be better able to proceed with the adventure, if the adventure is one in which time matters. And the presence of non-per-day resources makes such adventures more viable, by giving the wizard player something to do other than conserve resources for the adventure climax. (My reply to Gizmo33, post #1117, elaborates on this.)

Similarly, a party which conserves per-day resources may be better able to handle an encounter that comes unexpectedly, or turns out to be more difficult than was expected, or is one in which a player makes a mistaken choice which leads to the encounter really becoming a win/lose situation. These considerations all become important if the adventure is one in which the players cannot predict the likely number and sequence of encounters. And such an adventure becomes easier to design and to run when per-day resources are not the only resources to which a significant number of players have access. 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If, however, you know that you _*cannot*_ simply reset the per-day power, and that you might face more difficult encounters _today_, with whatever resources you have left, then you are faced with an actual decision.



I do not dispute this. The question is, what is the decision in question? If the wizard player has to choose to do nothing, then in effect they are choosing to miss a turn now, in order to have the chance at a really exciting turn in the future. For various reasons relating both to actual play experience with 3E and the desired play experience of 4e - which reasons may be open to criticism but are not obviously absurd - the 4e designers have decided to build a set of mechanics in which this decision does not have to be made.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The 15-minute adventuring day problem was created by a combination of a sharply narrowed range of mechanically significant encounters, coupled with the idea that it was "unfun" to prevent PCs from resting to recharge.  The narrowed range of encounters makes it more desireable to use your big guns (because, if a monster can affect you, it can probably kill your); the ease of resting removes any counter argument to using your big guns (because once used they can simply be reset).



We obviously disagree here, at least to an extent. I think the biggest cause of the problem is that players of wizards like to take a turn like everyone else, and _therefore_ choose to cast spells that will actually make a difference (ie their big guns) and therefore run out of things to do.

Do I think that a mix of per-day and per-encounter is the best solution? I don't have a view on that. It seems obvious to me that well-designed per-encounter abilities can produce mechanically interesting encounters without constraining the range of non-mechanical thresholds of signficance that get introduced. Adding in per-day abilities obviously has the risk of outcome that you see, namely, re-creating the one-encounter-per-day problem. But only if they are poorly designed. And I doubt that they will be, given the designers involved.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I have both read and understand what you're saying, RC. However, you have not seemed to understand what I've been trying to communicate.




I most specifically did not include you, JK, in that assessment.  I believe that your contributions to this discussion have all been honest.  However, when you say "If there is no attrition, then an encounter is simply irrelevant because it in no mechanical way impacts a later encounter" this is wrong.  

If there is no mechanical effect that lasts beyond a given encounter, and the players reasonably know or suspect this going into the encounter, the encounter is insignificant because the players know that, regardless of what happens within the encounter, nothing has changed.  An easy illustration of the same would be if, every time you landed on a property in Monopoly, you had to play a mini-game that had no effect on the game of Monopoly at all.  Very, very quickly, many groups would stop playing the mini-game.

Conversely, given what I have seen of the setup of 4e, the only set of encounters where the players will not reasonably know or suspect that they are playing the "landed on the Monopoly property" mini-game are those encounters where there is a significant chance of loss.  If there is no significant chance of loss, players will not use resources that do not reset after encounters.  If there is no significant chance of loss, the encounter is unlikely to force the players to lose resources that do not reset after encounters.

So, if I handwave away arguments that do not address what I am saying, it is because they have been answered dozens of times in the past.  3e also has the "landed on the Monopoly property" mini-game within it -- as exampled by 4 goblins facing a 10th level fighter.  If you can tell me why we are constantly told to simply ignore or handwave "4 goblins facing a 10th level fighter" encounters in 3e, you will also have answered both your and pemerton's quoted points.   Or, you could go back to my analysis, which also answers those points.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> There might not have even been a significant threat that the PCs were going to die, but if you're running out of attacks to fling at the enemy, then every spent resource seems very significant.




For the first combat, sure.  For the first 100 combats, maybe.  For 1,000?  For 10,000?  How many of these battles where you'e down to the last Death From Above and Fireball do you have to have before you notice that you're always down to....but almost never cross...that threshold?  How long does it take you to realize that the "down to the last" encounters are filler?

The obvious response is that, if you don't use your resources wisely in those encounters, you will cross the theshold.  

But now we are talking about encounters that can kill you.  And, yes, I agree that the narrow subset of encounters that can kill you are exciting.  In fact, my analysis predicts that DMs will quickly respond to the 4e set-up by making sure that most encounters have a win/lose aspect.

IOW, we will go from 1e, in which few encounters by themselves could kill you, through 3e where maybe half the encounters you faced could kill you, to 4e where almost all the encounters you face can kill you.



> And this argument swings both ways, as you've demonstrated with your nova-ing example. Players can approach either system with the tactical depth of a sledgehammer to the skull. The implication I always see is that somehow day-level resource useage is like some sort of chess game and that people are careful about how they use them.




And this is because, as Gizmo33 and I have been trying to say over and over again, _*changing the resource struncture will not solve this problem*_.  This problem is only solved by making a cost/risk associated with resetting resources (so that you have to consider whether or not to use them), or, as you said, taking resource renewal completely out of player hands.  

_*If there is no cost/risk involved with using your strongest tactics/resources first, prudent players will always use them first.*_


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And to yourself and RC, anything which doesn't reset within the framework of 1 day or more isn't a resource.




Please quote that or retract it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> Let's just stop there.




Lets.

Let's assume that your strawman paraphrase of my position earlier was merely error, and you were not attempting to drag me back into this morass where we all repeat the same things over and over again by forcing me to correct your gross mistatement of my point of view.

Likewise, your statement that I infer "because the players do not know, at time T, whether or not they will win or lose, it is therefore (objectively) a win/lose situation."  Not what I said.  

So, yes, let's just stop here.  

If other people have anything new or interesting to say on the topic, then I'll be happy to respond.  Anyone else wants to discuss that supposed inference, then I'll be happy to respond.

You and I are done, though.

RC


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> To give a parallel example: the claim "If I'm not facing a significant threat of divorce, then the effort I make in my marriage doesn't mean antyhing" is obviously false, for the obvious reason that the effort I am making in my marriage might be the reason why I am not facing a significant threat of divorce.




Strange analogy because marraige is a good example of a resource that is *NOT* per encounter.  Unless your wife forgets everything that you do a minute after you do it.  It's your aggregate behavior over weeks and years that determines the character of your marraige AFAIK and so I really see this analogy as making my case.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> Another example from a different field. I often have philosophical and legal discussions with my undergraduate students. With some students, whatever argument I put, good or bad, they will not be able to engage with it in an interesting fashion. Those discussions can be classed as "mechanically uninteresting" for me. On the other hand, some discussion actually require me to put my intellectual skills to work, and require me to deploy my best arguments in an intelligent way in order to defend my position. In such discussions I am typically still in no danger of "losing": very few undergraduate students have sufficient mastery of the discipline (be it philosophy or law) to be able to knock down the arguments that I am able to put up. But such discussions are not "mechanically uninteresting" - I find them very interesting, and indeed they're one of the best parts of my job, precisely because in order for me to defend my position I have to do some interesting thinking.




This is a strange example to me.  One reason is that you are the one deciding if you win or lose in this situation - I'm not really sure this is comparable to what goes on in DnD where there's more of an objective system exposed to the players that tells them whether they succeed or fail.  You're "winning" these arguments AFAIK because you say that you do.

Another thing is that something is interesting for a variety of reasons and I can't tell what those are in your example.  So if I were a 20th level fighter in real life and fighting 3 goblins I might find that interesting simply because of the sights and sounds that real life provides.  But the game of DnD is not that interesting in that way to me because my powers of visualization wouldn't be that vivid unless I were on drugs.  

Your students are also learning something, presumably, and seeing how they'll react might be interesting.  As a player I'm not all that interested in how the 3 goblins conduct themselves during the battle - they get killed and the game moves on.  I'm also not interested in how impressed the goblins are with my fighting ability.  

Finally, in order to defend your position you have to do some "interesting thinking" but I don't see really why it's all that interesting.  With a 0% chance (as you describe) of actually choosing an ineffective argument, how is it all that interesting?  In my own experiences situations that have a 0% chance of failure don't seem to me to have the characteristics you describe.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Strange analogy because marraige is a good example of a resource that is *NOT* per encounter.  Unless your wife forgets everything that you do a minute after you do it.  It's your aggregate behavior over weeks and years that determines the character of your marraige AFAIK and so I really see this analogy as making my case.



the marriage is not the resource in question, I think. The marriage is the same as "survival or succeeding at the adventures goal".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> the marriage is not the resource in question, I think. The marriage is the same as "survival or succeeding at the adventures goal".




If all of your resources in marriage "reset" after each encounter, then this would be an adequate analogy.  However, they don't even "reset" per day.


----------



## Jackelope King

Normally, I loathe the idea of posting a massive quote-for-quote, but since it seems I missed quite a bit last night after I turned on the Daily Show...



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> This is sort of a "tree falls in the forest does it make a sound" situation.  Why does it matter what resources a PC has when he's not fighting someone?  It only matters if the encounter isn't over.  Once it's "over", by definition, all those resources are back.



So? The action is over. The PCs had their exciting encounter, where they had to manage resources to be successful. If there isn't another encounter in the day, or the only other encounter is 4 goblins versus a 10th level fighter, or the only other encounter is something else that doesn't consume resources, what does it matter how many per-day resources were consumed? The encounter was exciting, and the game moved forward.



> The premise here is insufficient IMO to establish your conclusion.  I get two meteor strikes per day and I use one against a kobold.  I'm down to one meteor strike but I don't think you'd call the kobold encounter significant.  AFAICT you're making an unstated assumption here.



I'm making the claim that the more limited your resources are at any given moment, the more carefully you must micromanage them. If you have four fireballs per day, you also have 4 fireballs per encounter. If, on the other hand, you only have 1 fireball per encounter, the decision of when to use it is very significant. You seem to disagree that the decision of "when" is an important decision, and instead insist that it is only "if" that should be focused on. I disagree.



> Why would it be?  If I'm not facing a significant threat of death, then the depletion of my resources doesn't mean anything to me.  If running out of resources means a significant chance of death, and you're running out of resources, then the logical conclusion is that you *are* facing a significant chance of death.  It seems paradoxical to me to be otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> It's significant only when not having them means you're going to die.  Implicit in all of this reasoning is a significant chance of death at the per-encounter level.  Without that, it's like a character with two fireballs, AC 1000, and 1000 hitpoints fighting 30 goblins.  That's a situation where there's no significant chance of death and yet I'm probably going to use a fireball which is a 50% expenditure of my top resources.  It's not an interesting encounter if my fireballs are going to reset themselves at the end of the encounter.



Appendum: you spend resources because you are facing a significant chance of _defeat_. The parameters of each encounter define what "defeat" means, which could be anything from death to capture to the execution of a hostage to the loss of the MacGuffin to the explosion of the ticking time bomb to shame to missing the boat to just about anything else. If the players care about the outcome of the encounter, and they run a risk of suffering defeat, then they are more than likely concerned about how they're expending resources.



> The DMs complaining about nova-ing are actually implicitly recognizing that it works.  The "sledgehammer to the skull" analogy carries with it an implication AFAICT that is not true.  Nova-ing makes a lot of sense, and is a sensible tactic, that's why players keep doing it over and over.  In fact, in a medieval fantasy game a "sledgehammer to the skull" is probably pretty effective too
> 
> They are careful, and least in the experience of those of us advocating for them.  There is an important issue of wizards nova-ing in the per-day situation, only because of the mismatch between wizards and fighters - not because of the existence of the per-day paradigm.



My friend, please. Greatclubs rule, sledgehammers drool 

But yes, nova-ing works very well, and it illustrates the disparity in power between casters and non-casters that comes with getting a deep bag of resources.



> The reason that players are careful IME is that a day is a far longer, and more significant period of time to have to think about than a minute.  A player's ability to forsee their resource needs, when an encounter is over, for the next 60 seconds, is far more accurate than it is to forecast it over a period of time hundreds of times as long.  Without the uncertainty that the day-long time period provides, most of the uncertainty is going to come down to "is this encounter going to kill me", which has been one of my points from the beginning and seems to be at the core of every description of a per-encounter paradigm, often implicitly.



In my experience, they're less cautious in a per-day scenario because, quite frankly, people are bad at planning for the unknown. When they do start to plan long term, they tend to be sacrificing their enjoyment for the current encounter for a later one that might not even happen. It's like passing up a slice of cake after dinner because you don't want to be full just in case someone decides to serve brownies later in the evening, and you have no real idea whether or not anyone even brought brownies this time.



> Yes, but if fear of death is not a significant part of the encounter than the expenditure of the tokens are meaningless.  Consider - we wouldn't have as much to debate if you would agree that a per-encounter paradigm shifts the DMs encounter design focus to make sure that each encounter carries with it a measurable chance of PC death.



Because it doesn't. It merely requires that a DM who wants an encounter to feel significant to the group makes sure the PCs are invested in being victorious, which could mean any number of things.



> Calling it 'arbitrary' here is unwarranted/misleading it seems.  PCs have an arbitrary restriction on the speed at which they can move, for example.



It's arbitrary because there is no logical reason why the system is based on the idea that the average encounter consumes 25% of your resources, so 4 average encounters per-day is the balancing point. An average encounter could just as easily be defined as an encounter which consumed 20% of your resources, so you could have 5 encounters in a day, or one which requires 50% of your resources, so you could only have 2 in a day.



> That disparity is not created by the existence of daily resources, but instead a disparity in the amount and power of the resources.
> 
> I agree with your goal.  I just think that the per-day situation doesn't create this.  It's like saying that one character class gets d2 for hitpoints and the other gets d100 for hitpoints, but the problem is the hitpoint mechanic.  The problem is actually class design.



And casters get the amount of resources that they do because they're expected to ration them evenly over the course of a day. When they don't problems arise.



> Oh, ok, I missed that.  Your example is one of a class of "ticking timebomb" type situations.  Your facing a kobold, who is not himself a significant threat but he has his finger on a button that can blow up the world.  Or whatever.
> 
> These situations exist in both per-day and per-encounter.  What I don't see is how a per-encounter situation enhances this, or makes it exclusive.  Even with per-day resources I'm still choosing from those resources the tactically optimal way of keeping the bandits from running for help.  There's no real fundemental difference in the decision at that level.



You answer it yourself.



> The "per-day" resource situation though, carries with it the additional consideration of the fact that if I use a fireball against the fleeing bandits in order to keep them from raising an alarm, that I won't have it later.  It's possible that it might actually make sense to let the bandits escape because saving the fireball and using it against bandits+BBEG might make more sense.  In the per-encounter resource none of that matters - you blast away with whatever your tactically best option is and there are no consequences outside of making a wrong tactical decision (as you would in 3E as well).



Addition consideration are additional factors that must be put into designing an encounter. If the ticking time bomb is the last encounter, then I can't expect the PCs to be at full power during the fight, so I can't amek it a particularly challenging encounter, or they'll be wiped out.

Under a per-day system, I have to factor in the attrition from earlier encounter when designing these sorts of encounters, or the encounter won't be as exciting. I have to be familiar with how my group functions at each tier of resource attrition to be able to make sure encounters are appropriate.

Alternative, I can just say to splick with that, make encounters however I like, and let the PCs figure out for themselves when they should run away and when they should fight. But that leads to a lot of unsatisfying encounters, especially if victory and defeat carry with them significance within the context of the game-world itself.

As someone who dislikes dungeon exploration (where the latter paradigm of "I just make the encounters... you guys need to decide when to retreat), the former paradigm works much better for me. I like my encounters to have both mechanical and story sigificance.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I most specifically did not include you, JK, in that assessment.  I believe that your contributions to this discussion have all been honest.  However, when you say "If there is no attrition, then an encounter is simply irrelevant because it in no mechanical way impacts a later encounter" this is wrong.
> 
> If there is no mechanical effect that lasts beyond a given encounter, and the players reasonably know or suspect this going into the encounter, the encounter is insignificant because the players know that, regardless of what happens within the encounter, nothing has changed.  An easy illustration of the same would be if, every time you landed on a property in Monopoly, you had to play a mini-game that had no effect on the game of Monopoly at all.  Very, very quickly, many groups would stop playing the mini-game.
> 
> Conversely, given what I have seen of the setup of 4e, the only set of encounters where the players will not reasonably know or suspect that they are playing the "landed on the Monopoly property" mini-game are those encounters where there is a significant chance of loss.  If there is no significant chance of loss, players will not use resources that do not reset after encounters.  If there is no significant chance of loss, the encounter is unlikely to force the players to lose resources that do not reset after encounters.
> 
> So, if I handwave away arguments that do not address what I am saying, it is because they have been answered dozens of times in the past.  3e also has the "landed on the Monopoly property" mini-game within it -- as exampled by 4 goblins facing a 10th level fighter.  If you can tell me why we are constantly told to simply ignore or handwave "4 goblins facing a 10th level fighter" encounters in 3e, you will also have answered both your and pemerton's quoted points.   Or, you could go back to my analysis, which also answers those points.
> 
> RC



You have my thanks then.

However, you continue to ignore that, within a given encounter, the situation changes. Resource management within the encounter is important, because it impacts upon the success or failure of the party within that encounter.



> For the first combat, sure.  For the first 100 combats, maybe.  For 1,000?  For 10,000?  How many of these battles where you'e down to the last Death From Above and Fireball do you have to have before you notice that you're always down to....but almost never cross...that threshold?  How long does it take you to realize that the "down to the last" encounters are filler?
> 
> The obvious response is that, if you don't use your resources wisely in those encounters, you will cross the theshold.
> 
> But now we are talking about encounters that can kill you.  And, yes, I agree that the narrow subset of encounters that can kill you are exciting.  In fact, my analysis predicts that DMs will quickly respond to the 4e set-up by making sure that most encounters have a win/lose aspect.
> 
> IOW, we will go from 1e, in which few encounters by themselves could kill you, through 3e where maybe half the encounters you faced could kill you, to 4e where almost all the encounters you face can kill you.



I appologize if I've failed to be clear enough, but there is a huge spectrum of outcomes for an encounter beyond "living/dead". So long as the PCs are invested in emerging from an encounter victorious, and if that victory can be denied if they are unwise in marshaling their resources, then the encounter is significant to the players. It's really just that simple. Death is one possible penatly for failure to achieve victory. So too is capture, losing the MacGuffin, the hostage being killed, the bad guys gaining ground, etc. etc. etc. I know you've handwaved these away before as insignificant, but in my experience over years of gaming, players who are invested in the outcome of an encounter will be invested in managing their resources effectively during an encounter to achieve their goal within the encounter.

Plus, I think refering to 1e encounters as there being "very few that can kill you" is a little innaccurate in my experience. Then again, I freely admit that the DMs I played 1e games with held the Tomb of Horrors as the pinacle of all things D&D, so every freaking brick in the dungeon had a high probability of killing you 



> And this is because, as Gizmo33 and I have been trying to say over and over again, _*changing the resource struncture will not solve this problem*_.  This problem is only solved by making a cost/risk associated with resetting resources (so that you have to consider whether or not to use them), or, as you said, taking resource renewal completely out of player hands.
> 
> _*If there is no cost/risk involved with using your strongest tactics/resources first, prudent players will always use them first.*_



And myself and others (including apparently the designers who think that this system will benefit the game) argue that it will. If you have fewer spells to fling, then your nova-ing will be that much less impressive. It's really just that simple.

Now, if you still believe that nova-ing is just as effective, I request that you show me how you can nova as effectively when you have a shallower per-encounter pool of resources as you can when you have a deep day-long pool of resources. If you truly believe that you can nova a caster (say a psion, for the ease of setting them to 25% resources) with a shallower pool of resources as well as you can one at 100% resources, prove it.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And to yourself and RC, anything which doesn't reset within the framework of 1 day or more isn't a resource.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Please quote that or retract it.



Allow me to ammend this then. "A _significant_ resource."

However, RC, you are still failing to see that an individual encounter can be significant, and indeed, that is the only garunteed encounter within a given rest peroid. _The only garunteed one_. It's folly to sacrifice the excitement of this _garunteed_ encounter for the _potential_ excitement of a _potential_ encounter. This is the fundamental disconnect between our points of view. I feel as though players should be encouarged to focus more heavily on this garunteed encounter, since it's the only one anyone can be certain the PCs will experience in that day, while you feel that losing focus and enjoyment in order to add an element of long-term resource management is a more than fair sacrifice. (To this end, I must also conclude that you dislike playing classes like Rogue and Fighter, who lack this long-term resource management, and consider them poorly designed for this very reason).

I disagree that the long-term _possible_ fun is a suitable substitute for short-term _garunteed_ fun. And besides, for long term fun, that's what the overall adventure is for.


----------



## Raven Crowking

JK, I'm going to be selective in answering because some of this would result in the same old back-n-forth, and I believe that we are both hoping to get actual insight into the other's viewpoint.  Fair enough?



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'm making the claim that the more limited your resources are at any given moment, the more carefully you must micromanage them.




Well, we both agree as far as this goes.

However, the more frequently, and the greater ease, with which you can renew resources, it is also true that the less carefully you must micromanage them.  As an easy example, you might have only one sword-swing per round (limited at any given moment), but because it can be done each round (easily and often renewed) you don't need to micromanage this resource very carefully.



> If you have four fireballs per day, you also have 4 fireballs per encounter. If, on the other hand, you only have 1 fireball per encounter, the decision of when to use it is very significant.




I would rather say, "If you have four fireballs per day, you _could potentially_ also have 4 fireballs per encounter.  If, on the other hand, you only have 1 fireball per encounter, the decision of when to use it _could be_ very significant."

Imagine that you have 4 fireballs per day.  You are going into a dungeon that, thanks to your divination spells, you know has only one significant encounter, and you know that you can eliminate it with a single fireball.  In this case, the decision of when to use any of the remaining fireballs, or even the final fireball, is relatively insignificant _because you know the outcome_.

Conversely, imagine that you have one fireball each encounter, and fireball is your most potent per-encounter ability.  _Unless there is a strong reason not to_ you will automatically lead with your fireball, because there is no cost associated with doing so.  From a tactical standpoint, it is always better to lead with your best capabilities unless there is a reason not to.

So, the _decision_ of when to use the one fireball per encounter could be "very significant" only insofar as there is some reason not to use it immediately.  There is a difference between an _effect_ being significant and a _decision to use that effect_ being significant.

Simple illustration:  I am playing a video game, and I unlock a cheat code that allows me to kill all enemies with a single blow.  Once I have decided to use this cheat code, the ability is certainly significant.  The decision to use it in all subsequent combats, however, is not.  It requires no thought, no choice, no investment, nothing.



> You seem to disagree that the decision of "when" is an important decision, and instead insist that it is only "if" that should be focused on.




The per-day paradigm is all about "when".  "Should I use my potent spell now, or should I save it?" is as much a "when" question as an "if" question.

However, for a "when" question (or, for that matter, an "if" question) to arise, there must first be some reason that the immediate and obvious answer is not either "now/yes" or "not now/no".

A 3e wizard faces no "when" or "if" question re: fireball when the 10th level D&D party encounters a lone kobold.  The answer is obviously "not now/no".  This because the fireball is overkill for the encounter, and might be needed later.  Likewise, if the fireball will automatically reset when the kobold is dead, there is no "might be needed later" and therefore no concern about overkill for the encounter.  The answer is an obvious "now/yes".

I think it would be worth our while to confine, for the moment, our enquiry within the space of a single encounter.

Imagine, if you will, a party of four PCs, each of whom has 30 hit points.  Despite their class, the each have a mixed bag of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day powers.  Despite the fluff, each of these powers is roughly equal:

At-will:  Needs an attack roll, hitting roughly 25% of the time on an APL encounter, does an average of 6 hp damage to a single target (analagous to the use of sword, bow, etc.).

Per-encounter 1:  Special attack that does not require an attack roll, can do an average of 24 points of damage to a single target, or 6 points to 4 targets.

Per-encounter 2:  Special abilitiy that allows you to use your at-will ability, and also heal all comrades 6 hp damage.

Per-encounter 3:  Special ability that allows you to use your at-will ability, and also heal yourself 24 points damage.

Per-day 1:  Special ability that allows you to do an average 50 points of damage to a single target.  Using it also means that you can no longer use per-encounter ability 1.

Per-day 2:  Special ability that allows you to do an average 25 points of damage to two targets.  Using it also means that you can no longer use per-encounter ability 2.​
Note that I do not think that these are the abilities inherent in 4e.  They are simply for illustrative purposes.  Do feel able to discuss encounters using these as a guideline?

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I would rather say, "If you have four fireballs per day, you _could potentially_ also have 4 fireballs per encounter.  If, on the other hand, you only have 1 fireball per encounter, the decision of when to use it _could be_ very significant."
> 
> Imagine that you have 4 fireballs per day.  You are going into a dungeon that, thanks to your divination spells, you know has only one significant encounter, and you know that you can eliminate it with a single fireball.  In this case, the decision of when to use any of the remaining fireballs, or even the final fireball, is relatively insignificant _because you know the outcome_.
> 
> Conversely, imagine that you have one fireball each encounter, and fireball is your most potent per-encounter ability.  _Unless there is a strong reason not to_ you will automatically lead with your fireball, because there is no cost associated with doing so.  From a tactical standpoint, it is always better to lead with your best capabilities unless there is a reason not to.



Just as in previous D&D, you will have more than a single fireball during an encounter.
Assume you also have a Dispel Magic spell, and also a powerful magic missile spell (deals more damage than a fireball, but only to a single target). 
So, now you have a tactical challenging decision:
Do I throw the fireball, and damage most enemies in the area? Or do I concentrate on the big brute monster over there and hope I can get to killit with my magic missile spell?
Or do I use my dispel magic spell to dispel the Spellcasting Monster's defensive aura so the groups fighter can take him out quicker? Or should I better use the Dispel Magic to counterspell the enemies spell? 
Basically, the flaw in your argument (to me) is this: You assume there is no meaningful choice during the encounter which resources to deploy. That would indeed lead to a "novaing"-like approach with little meaning. But I guess the designers noticed that, too (in fact, I think one of the blogs notes that they had a game situation where this was the case, and they found a way to fix it. I think the post was made with a title like "button pressing")

Now, imagine even further: Imagine in any given encounter, you could only use one or two of these abilities, not all? Which one is the better choice? Basically, it's the same question spellcasters face today each day: Which spells do I ready? I am theoretically capable of 4 fireballs per day, but then I won't be able to cast Fly or Dispel Magic. But if I prepare one of those, I don't have much fireballs left.. 
But instead of deciding only once per day, you decide for each encounter which ability is important. Over the course of an adventure, you are more flexible, but during each encounter, the decision is meaningful.

(Note: Siloing might change the examples a bit, because you might not need to decide between Dispel Magic and Fireball. But it's possible siloing works only on the "per day"-level - to ensure that you have Phantom Speed, Dispel Magic and Fireball ready, but during an individual encounter, you might only get to use one of these spells)


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> JK, I'm going to be selective in answering because some of this would result in the same old back-n-forth, and I believe that we are both hoping to get actual insight into the other's viewpoint.  Fair enough?



Not a problem.



> Well, we both agree as far as this goes.
> 
> However, the more frequently, and the greater ease, with which you can renew resources, it is also true that the less carefully you must micromanage them.  As an easy example, you might have only one sword-swing per round (limited at any given moment), but because it can be done each round (easily and often renewed) you don't need to micromanage this resource very carefully.



Agreed. However, per-encounter abilities cannot be reset during an encounter, just as per-day resources can't. That's where your analogy breaks down. Within the context of that one encounter, resources do deplete.



> I would rather say, "If you have four fireballs per day, you _could potentially_ also have 4 fireballs per encounter.  If, on the other hand, you only have 1 fireball per encounter, the decision of when to use it _could be_ very significant."
> 
> Imagine that you have 4 fireballs per day.  You are going into a dungeon that, thanks to your divination spells, you know has only one significant encounter, and you know that you can eliminate it with a single fireball.  In this case, the decision of when to use any of the remaining fireballs, or even the final fireball, is relatively insignificant _because you know the outcome_.
> 
> Conversely, imagine that you have one fireball each encounter, and fireball is your most potent per-encounter ability.  _Unless there is a strong reason not to_ you will automatically lead with your fireball, because there is no cost associated with doing so.  From a tactical standpoint, it is always better to lead with your best capabilities unless there is a reason not to.
> 
> So, the _decision_ of when to use the one fireball per encounter could be "very significant" only insofar as there is some reason not to use it immediately.  There is a difference between an _effect_ being significant and a _decision to use that effect_ being significant.
> 
> Simple illustration:  I am playing a video game, and I unlock a cheat code that allows me to kill all enemies with a single blow.  Once I have decided to use this cheat code, the ability is certainly significant.  The decision to use it in all subsequent combats, however, is not.  It requires no thought, no choice, no investment, nothing.



That presupposes that your fireball is your most powerful choice. As I illustrated with IH, that isn't the choice in most per-encounter designs. You can't spam your biggest spell because you don't have a "biggest spell". You may have a handful of options that you have to choose between and decide when and if to deploy.



> The per-day paradigm is all about "when".  "Should I use my potent spell now, or should I save it?" is as much a "when" question as an "if" question.



It's only "when" if "when=which encounter". There is less emphasis on "which round".



> However, for a "when" question (or, for that matter, an "if" question) to arise, there must first be some reason that the immediate and obvious answer is not either "now/yes" or "not now/no".
> 
> A 3e wizard faces no "when" or "if" question re: fireball when the 10th level D&D party encounters a lone kobold.  The answer is obviously "not now/no".  This because the fireball is overkill for the encounter, and might be needed later.  Likewise, if the fireball will automatically reset when the kobold is dead, there is no "might be needed later" and therefore no concern about overkill for the encounter.  The answer is an obvious "now/yes".



I'm afraid your hyperbole is showing. Yes, if you present your PCs with an obviously lop-sided encounter, then they won't have much of a choice with their per-encounter abilities. That doesn't speak to more appropriate challenges.



> I think it would be worth our while to confine, for the moment, our enquiry within the space of a single encounter.
> 
> Imagine, if you will, a party of four PCs, each of whom has 30 hit points.  Despite their class, the each have a mixed bag of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day powers.  Despite the fluff, each of these powers is roughly equal:
> 
> At-will:  Needs an attack roll, hitting roughly 25% of the time on an APL encounter, does an average of 6 hp damage to a single target (analagous to the use of sword, bow, etc.).
> 
> Per-encounter 1:  Special attack that does not require an attack roll, can do an average of 24 points of damage to a single target, or 6 points to 4 targets.
> 
> Per-encounter 2:  Special abilitiy that allows you to use your at-will ability, and also heal all comrades 6 hp damage.
> 
> Per-encounter 3:  Special ability that allows you to use your at-will ability, and also heal yourself 24 points damage.
> 
> Per-day 1:  Special ability that allows you to do an average 50 points of damage to a single target.  Using it also means that you can no longer use per-encounter ability 1.
> 
> Per-day 2:  Special ability that allows you to do an average 25 points of damage to two targets.  Using it also means that you can no longer use per-encounter ability 2.​
> Note that I do not think that these are the abilities inherent in 4e.  They are simply for illustrative purposes.  Do feel able to discuss encounters using these as a guideline?
> 
> RC



Honestly, I don't. While I greatly appreciate your willingness to discuss this within the context of a single encounter, I am not certain if this is really an adequate cross-section of abilities available to a reaslitic game. However, I am open to the possibility that I'm quite wrong in my initial impression here, and would invite you to continue with your example.


----------



## gizmo33

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Basically, the flaw in your argument (to me) is this: You assume there is no meaningful choice during the encounter which resources to deploy. That would indeed lead to a "novaing"-like approach with little meaning. But I guess the designers noticed that, too (in fact, I think one of the blogs notes that they had a game situation where this was the case, and they found a way to fix it. I think the post was made with a title like "button pressing")




I believe you're referring to the blog post of James Wyatt's (not the first one, but one linked later on in this thread).  As I recall he *did* talk about the way to fix it, and that was was *per day resources*.  The "button pressing" title referred to the rather mindless way that per-encounter resources were used in his WoW game - a sentiment that directly contradicts the idea that per-encounter situations can always (or even frequently) contain some really compelling events of tactical interest and yet somehow not be deadly at the same time.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Assume you also have a Dispel Magic spell, and also a powerful magic missile spell (deals more damage than a fireball, but only to a single target).
> So, now you have a tactical challenging decision:




It is absolutely true, especially as one grows used to a new system (i.e., the aforementioned "shine" period) that a player might not know, within a given circumstance, _which_ of his powers is most significant.  If you believe that, after playing the game for a year or so, players will not know which powers are most significant in any normal circumstance, then, yes, this is a valid criticism of my position.

In 1e, there were a few module encounters that nerfed obvious spells so that it wasn't obvious which powers were significant within that encounter.  4e could go this way.  

However, I do not assume there can be no meaningful choice during the encounter, within the context of the encounter.  

I _do_ assume that the average player, however, in any given situation is automatically going to choose whichever resource seems most significant within that context, except as using that resource has repercussions.

"Imagine in any given encounter, you could only use one or two of these abilities, not all? Which one is the better choice?" is a repercussion.   Repercussions are, IMHO, a good thing.  It is perfectly possible to have repercussions within a given encounter; the effects of Haste in 1e are a good example of this.  However, nothnig I have seen from WotC yet indicates that "repercussions = fun" is in their lexicon.

My argument, at its basic level, is that preventing a 15-minute adventuring day is a function of repercussions for using resources indiscriminately.  The per-day/per-encounter paradigm will not solve it without significant repercussions, and AFAICT, actually removes existing repercussions from play.

Players act carefully when there are repercussions to not acting carefully.  Win/lose situations have repercussions.  Spells that might turn on you have repercussions.  Resource attrition is a repercussion.

I also assume that, while individual encounters might be fun, the context of those encounters lends them a large part of their meaning.  

This is, again, analogous to my "land on property in Monopoly" mini-game.  If every time you landed on owned property in Monopoly, the rules called for you to play a game of chess before paying up, I doubt very many people would have included this aspect of the game within their own play for long.  Chess is a wonderfully tactical game, and is by itself interesting to play.  However, because the chess game doesn't impact the Monopoly game, it is much ado about nothing.  Most players are sitting at the table, IMHO, to play the overarching Monopoly.

If, OTOH, a quick game of scissors/rock/paper determined whether or not you had to pay, more people would include that in their game.  It is less tactically challenging, but far more _relevant_ to the overarching game.

I feel that it is self-evident that actions that are relevant to the overarching game are inherently more interesting than actions that are not.  Indeed, if this was not the case, the game might as well be DDM, where you stage various skirmishes that are unrelated -- or tangentially related -- to each other.

I find it rather telling that, while you might have to make the same sort of decisions fighting 4 goblins at 10th level as you do fighting something that can hurt you, a great many people suggest that the 4 goblins should be handwaved, while the other fight should not.  And I find it rather telling that, although this parallel has been brought up again and again, it hasn't exactly been addressed by those claiming that fights which have tactical decisions, but no repercussions beyond the encounter, are as interesting as those which have both.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Honestly, I don't. While I greatly appreciate your willingness to discuss this within the context of a single encounter, I am not certain if this is really an adequate cross-section of abilities available to a reaslitic game.





Make up your own schedule of abilities, then.

Remember that the purpose is illustrative only.  You do not need (and in all likelihood, cannot obtain!) a 1:1 map of what 4e will be.  All you need is something illustrative of the types of choices that are possible.  We will look at that schedule of abilities, then, as a subset of possible designs, not to be conflated with the actual design.

My attempt was to make something that was both simple enough to understand/see clearly, while allowing for some complexity of choices.

When you have something you are comfortable with, let me know.  We can continue from there.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> It's only "when" if "when=which encounter".   There is less emphasis on "which round".




Why do you think that is?


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> So? The action is over. The PCs had their exciting encounter, where they had to manage resources to be successful. If there isn't another encounter in the day, or the only other encounter is 4 goblins versus a 10th level fighter, or the only other encounter is something else that doesn't consume resources, what does it matter how many per-day resources were consumed? The encounter was exciting, and the game moved forward.




Most of what you're saying here is circular AFAICT because it assumes as a premise the very things that we're debating.  For example you say that it was an "exciting encounter" with no foundation - since we disagree on which elements would need to be present to be an exciting encounter.  Clearly if I felt that every encounter were an exciting one automatically, then I wouldn't have an issue.  IMO PCs don't have to manage resources with any great effort unless one of two things is true:  the encounter poses a significant chance of killing a PC, or, there are long time-period (per-day, for example) ramifications for using a resource.  All of the other considerations (like what you need in order to stop a bandit from retreating) are tactical or story-related, and not resource, considerations and exist under either system.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> If, on the other hand, you only have 1 fireball per encounter, the decision of when to use it is very significant. You seem to disagree that the decision of "when" is an important decision, and instead insist that it is only "if" that should be focused on. I disagree.




As I already said, the "when" (IIRC you mean the tactical question) issue isn't any different between the two systems (and since a lack of resources at a particular moment is a possibility that exists in either system, your earlier objection IMO is unfounded).  



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Appendum: you spend resources because you are facing a significant chance of _defeat_.




This is not the only possibility.  You spend resources also to minimize the loss of other resources.  Saving your fireball and killing the goblins by hand might not risk you death, but you'll lose more hitpoints and it will cost you more spells in healing from that decision.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The parameters of each encounter define what "defeat" means,




Only because you say they do.  In the "per-day" paradigm, the parameters that detrmine "defeat" actually extend over the entire adventure.  Like in real life, I may very well "win the battle but lose the war", a situation that's not possible in the per-encounter situation because there is no distinction between battles and wars because there is no operational aspect to the game other than those that are story-related.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> If the players care about the outcome of the encounter, and they run a risk of suffering defeat, then they are more than likely concerned about how they're expending resources.




So how is this not another example of the argument coming back to the idea that every encounter in a per-encounter resource situation has to be deadly in order to keep the players interested in how they are spending resources?  



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> But yes, nova-ing works very well, and it illustrates the disparity in power between casters and non-casters that comes with getting a deep bag of resources.



?  No, wizard's don't have a *deep* bag of resources - remember the 9:00-9:15 adventuring problem?



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> In my experience, they're less cautious in a per-day scenario because, quite frankly, people are bad at planning for the unknown.




This, strictly speaking, is a matter of interpretation and not experience.  You're assessment of cause and effect is not a matter of experience by definition.  IME I've observed a correlation between things that are hard and people being cautious while doing them.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> When they do start to plan long term, they tend to be sacrificing their enjoyment for the current encounter for a later one that might not even happen. It's like passing up a slice of cake after dinner because you don't want to be full just in case someone decides to serve brownies later in the evening, and you have no real idea whether or not anyone even brought brownies this time.




Yes, it would not be fun for me to go to dinner expecting dessert and then have to wonder whether or not I'm going to have any.  On the other hand, it's not fun for me to play DnD and have no doubt that I will be victorious in all matters.  Therefore I find your analogy very hard to apply because certain success is part of what I expect from dessert but not from DnD.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Because it doesn't. It merely requires that a DM who wants an encounter to feel significant to the group makes sure the PCs are invested in being victorious, which could mean any number of things.




I find your language vague here and in many places.  A 20th level fighter is certainly *invested* in being victorious over a lone goblin.  That, in itself, does not ensure than the encounter is interesting.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> It's arbitrary because there is no logical reason why the system is based on the idea that the average encounter consumes 25% of your resources,




I don't understand the significance of this idea.  There's no logical reason why fireball is 3rd level and cone of cold is 5th level other than their spell effects were arbitrarily chosen to be a match for those levels.  The foundation of the DnD system assumes a per-day resource expenditure.  There's no logical reason for any rule in DnD other than those based on real life issues, and since we're talking about magic that's not a possibility.  Since *any* magic system you propose will have limitations, even a per-encounter one, your system will have as many arbitrary limitations as any other.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And casters get the amount of resources that they do because they're expected to ration them evenly over the course of a day. When they don't problems arise.




Yea, just a like a problem arises if you are hit by three criticals in a row.  A couple of ogres attacking the PCs is also a "problem".  AFAICT You're conflating the use of the word "problem" to indicate that a problem/challenge facing the players automatically means that there is a problem with the game system.  



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> If the ticking time bomb is the last encounter, then I can't expect the PCs to be at full power during the fight, so I can't amek it a particularly challenging encounter, or they'll be wiped out.




There is a spectrum of possiblities here that you're ignoring.  Instead you seem to be arguing that either the PCs are at 100% resources, or they'll be wiped out.  There's actually a whole range of other possiblities in the per-day system.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Under a per-day system, I have to factor in the attrition from earlier encounter when designing these sorts of encounters, or the encounter won't be as exciting. I have to be familiar with how my group functions at each tier of resource attrition to be able to make sure encounters are appropriate.




You actually can just create the encounter and let them figure it out.  Designing dungeons from a global perspective is the way to deal with this.  Think of a dungeon as a single large encounter and the available resources as "per-encounter" because it would be the same consideration in your system.  The thing that makes the situation harder is when you're trying to micromanage each encounter and situation, it's true that the DM cannot predict the circumstances of every encounter in the adventure, but in my DMing style I don't want to - and my players expect to have to think about what they're doing rather than just slogging forward until they die or kill everything.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Alternative, I can just say to splick with that, make encounters however I like, and let the PCs figure out for themselves when they should run away and when they should fight.




The PCs do get to choose this



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> But that leads to a lot of unsatisfying encounters, especially if victory and defeat carry with them significance within the context of the game-world itself.




You seem to repeatedly equate failure with "unfun" - which contradicts alot of what you say earlier is the motivation for being interested in a per-encounter situation.  Yes, the fact that defeat has game-world significance is what makes it worth trying to being with.  To be "unsatisfied" by defeat is to basically say that the game should always be about winning.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I believe you're referring to the blog post of James Wyatt's (not the first one, but one linked later on in this thread).  As I recall he *did* talk about the way to fix it, and that was was *per day resources*.  The "button pressing" title referred to the rather mindless way that per-encounter resources were used in his WoW game - a sentiment that directly contradicts the idea that per-encounter situations can always (or even frequently) contain some really compelling events of tactical interest and yet somehow not be deadly at the same time.



Hmm. I think we are both referring to the same quote, but I didn't understand (or remember) the solution as you describe it. 
If it turns out to be just injecting the D&D <4 rules into the game, I might actually be disappointed. I'll guess I have to go back and reread it precisely. (another time, though)



> I think it would be worth our while to confine, for the moment, our enquiry within the space of a single encounter.
> 
> Imagine, if you will, a party of four PCs, each of whom has 30 hit points. Despite their class, the each have a mixed bag of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day powers. Despite the fluff, each of these powers is roughly equal:
> 
> At-will: Needs an attack roll, hitting roughly 25% of the time on an APL encounter, does an average of 6 hp damage to a single target (analagous to the use of sword, bow, etc.).
> 
> Per-encounter 1: Special attack that does not require an attack roll, can do an average of 24 points of damage to a single target, or 6 points to 4 targets.
> 
> Per-encounter 2: Special abilitiy that allows you to use your at-will ability, and also heal all comrades 6 hp damage.
> 
> Per-encounter 3: Special ability that allows you to use your at-will ability, and also heal yourself 24 points damage.
> 
> Per-day 1: Special ability that allows you to do an average 50 points of damage to a single target. Using it also means that you can no longer use per-encounter ability 1.
> 
> Per-day 2: Special ability that allows you to do an average 25 points of damage to two targets. Using it also means that you can no longer use per-encounter ability 2.



I am not certain that even these specifics match what I would expect from a good "per encounter" system (though I am not refuting that this is how it could work  )

Here is another take, only focussing on the wizard (assuming a fixed level and eliminating dice):

At Will 1: Deal 20 points of damage to a single target
At Will 2: Your attack in the next round against the chosen enemy deals +30 points of damage if using At Will 1
At Will 3: Activate a Shield that grants +4 deflection to AC for 2 rounds
1/Encounter 1: Deal 15 points of damage in a 4 square radius
1/Encounter 2: Deal 80 points of damage to a single foe
1/Encounter 3: Fly up to 120 ft
1/Encounter 4: Climb Walls for the duration of the encounter
1/Encounter 4: Erect a Shield that grants a +4 deflection bonus to AC for all allies. 
1/Encounter 5: Dispel all magical effects on a single target or suppress its next magical attack
1/Day 1: Deal 40 points of damage in a 4 square radius
1/Day 2: Teleport yourself and all allies you touch to the next Teleportation Portal or City Centre
1/Day 3: All allies enjoy a +2 resistance bonus to all defenses for the remainder of he day

You can use each encounter based ability only once per encounter. In addition, you can only use a maximum ability 1 or 2 not both, and the same for ability 3 and 4 or 5 and 6, respectively. You might have made an additional decision which of these ability pairs you got the day.
There are alternative abilities you could have taken the day for Day 1, Day2, and Day 3 abilities each, but you can't take ability one twice (at the expense of ability 2 and 3)


----------



## Felon

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.
> 
> I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.



Personally, I always found the art of preparing spells to be pretty enoyable, but I think the answer's pretty obvious. Many people are sloppy and impulsive. Give them a big gun with three bullets, and four rounds into the first battle they'll be screaming for everyone to retreat until they can find more bullets.

The discipline it takes to pace oneself, to plan ahead, just isn't there. It's been deemed "unfun". This is a change in playstyle from the gygaxian days when frequently the price for impatience was one character sheet.


----------



## gizmo33

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Hmm. I think we are both referring to the same quote, but I didn't understand (or remember) the solution as you describe it.
> If it turns out to be just injecting the D&D <4 rules into the game, I might actually be disappointed. I'll guess I have to go back and reread it precisely. (another time, though)




http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906388  (search the page for 'button mashing' I think)

Here Wyatt identifies the problem.  He makes some vague comments about good power design.  AFAICT He doesn't rule out a mix of per-day and per-encounter abilities that are balanced in a better way.

Here, Monte Cook does the same thing:
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_Spellcasters

Setting aside their reasoning about cause and effect, there are plenty of counter examples in their raw experiences to some of the generalizations being used to support an all per-encounter design.  For instance, why is Wyatt locked into a "button mashing" mode in a game of all per-encounter resources?  What happened to the claim that the tactical issues in such a game would be interesting enough to warrant the design?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Here is another take, only focussing on the wizard (assuming a fixed level and eliminating dice):
> 
> At Will 1: Deal 20 points of damage to a single target
> At Will 2: Your attack in the next round against the chosen enemy deals +30 points of damage if using At Will 1
> At Will 3: Activate a Shield that grants +4 deflection to AC for 2 rounds
> 1/Encounter 1: Deal 15 points of damage in a 4 square radius
> 1/Encounter 2: Deal 80 points of damage to a single foe
> 1/Encounter 3: Fly up to 120 ft
> 1/Encounter 4: Climb Walls for the duration of the encounter
> 1/Encounter 4: Erect a Shield that grants a +4 deflection bonus to AC for all allies.
> 1/Encounter 5: Dispel all magical effects on a single target or suppress its next magical attack
> 1/Day 1: Deal 40 points of damage in a 4 square radius
> 1/Day 2: Teleport yourself and all allies you touch to the next Teleportation Portal or City Centre
> 1/Day 3: All allies enjoy a +2 resistance bonus to all defenses for the remainder of he day
> 
> You can use each encounter based ability only once per encounter. In addition, you can only use a maximum ability 1 or 2 not both, and the same for ability 3 and 4 or 5 and 6, respectively. You might have made an additional decision which of these ability pairs you got the day.
> There are alternative abilities you could have taken the day for Day 1, Day2, and Day 3 abilities each, but you can't take ability one twice (at the expense of ability 2 and 3)




You need to state how many hit points the PCs have in this system, and then I'll be happy to use it for further discussion.

JK, does this work for you?


----------



## Raven Crowking

BTW, does this (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=207912) sound like encounter design that will be encouraging win/lose scenarios to you?


----------



## Mallus

Felon said:
			
		

> Many people are sloppy and impulsive.



Which are shameful traits in people pretending to be elves.



> Give them a big gun with three bullets, and four rounds into the first battle they'll be screaming for everyone to retreat until they can find more bullets.



What part of 'cathartic power-fantasy' don't you understand? 



> The discipline it takes to pace oneself, to plan ahead, just isn't there.



You realize that you're turning a play style preference into a value judgment, right?



> This is a change in playstyle from the gygaxian days when frequently the price for impatience was one character sheet.



And the price of trying to rationalize a dungeon was a stupendous headache.

Taste's change, it's as simple as that.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> BTW, does this (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=207912) sound like encounter design that will be encouraging win/lose scenarios to you?




By itself, IMO, no.  (If this wasn't a general question I apologize for chiming in.)

I can't see the content that you have to sign in for, but the quotes say three things:
1.  encounters are going to assume a number of monsters equal to the number of PCs 
2.  the idea of "monster roles"
3.  the use of "hazards" in an encounter

I don't see (perhaps missing some context) how any of the three ideas relate to deadliness.  All three ideas were concepts that existed in 3E as well.


----------



## gizmo33

Mallus said:
			
		

> Taste's change, it's as simple as that.




So is that why Paizo sells so well revamping old Greyhawk ideas?  Maybe it's not as simple as you're trying to suggest.  I guess "progress" can be used as a justification for itself.  Change for the sake of change.  

"Tastes" don't exist anyway.  There are just tastes of individuals, and perhaps a general collective will at times, but it's presumptuous to give your tastes some sort of weight in this area. 

Ironically it seems you're implying that change by itself is a virtue in a game that is recycling characters and themes that are thousands of years old.  I think you're overstating the simplicity (though I could be wrong as the sentence is somewhat cryptic).


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You need to state how many hit points the PCs have in this system, and then I'll be happy to use it for further discussion.
> 
> JK, does this work for you?



That works fine by me, since getting something more accurate will require either precognition or unfettered access to Mike Mearls' desk


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> That works fine by me, since getting something more accurate will require either precognition or unfettered access to Mike Mearls' desk




OK, then.  We need to determine how many hit points this PC has, and then we can use him to examine sample encounters.  That 4e apparently makes the assumption of one monster per PC can help us in our work.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> your statement that I infer "because the players do not know, at time T, whether or not they will win or lose, it is therefore (objectively) a win/lose situation."  Not what I said. "



RC, you said (and I quoted in my post):

An encounter unfolds, "in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition". This is a win/lose situation. The players know they might win; they know they might lose. They do not know which it is going to be.​
Here are your three sentences, rendered into a form and sequence more tractable to analysis:

*The encounter is one in which, in any round, the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource attrition.

*The players know they might win; they know they might lose.

*The encounter is a win/lose encounter.​The first sentence is what I asserted in an earlier post. It attributes a certain ignorance or doubt to the players.

The second you seem to treat as equivalent, or else infer - if I've labelled as an inference what you take to be an equivalence, I apologise, but it is not always easy to tell the difference in an informally-presented passage of text, and you had in earlier post stressed your preference for "if-then" assertions.

But it is not equivalent - "A does not know which of P or Q" does not entail "A knows that it might be that P or might be that Q." It may be that A does not which of P or Q, but one of P or Q is definitely true, and the other is not a possibility.

The second sentence does entail the third, as knowledge of P entails the truth of P. Hence, I focussed on the step I have identified - the relationship between the epistemic situation of the players, and the outcome of the encounter, and on what I took to be the two interesting features of that relationship: the possibility of player ignorance, and the impact upon the outcome of the choices the players make within their dynamic epistemic situation.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You and I are done, though.



I gather you think I have behaved in some reprehensible manner.

I find this puzzling. You have accused me of not understanding the nature of argument and rebuttal, of not being able to follow the logic of "if-then" sentences, of  logical incompetence in general, and (by implication, in your reply above to Jackelope King) of dishonesty.

On the other hand, I have tried to isolate the character of your reasoning, and present it as clearly as I can so as to respond to it. This is the normal way in which argument proceeds. I have responded to your responses, I have indicated where I think your claims to be true or plausible, I have tried to identify the points of our disagreement. I have not engaged in any personal abuse.

As far as I can tell, we have three principal points of disagreement:

*You appear to think that prudent players will always lead with their per-day resources. I disagree, holding that this depends entirely on what those resources are. I have given examples to try and illustrate this.

*You appear to think that encounters will not be interesting if they have no _mechanical_ impact on the subsequent play of the game. I do not agree. It is possible to generate interest by requiring sophisticated tactical play in order to bring it about that there is no long-term mechanical impact.

*You appear to deny that purely per-day resources impose obstacles to the use of non-mechanical thresholds of significance in adventure design. For the reasons I have given in earlier posts, I don't agree.​A further matter which I belive, but which you may dispute (although I'm not sure) is this:

*The introduction of a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources increases the range of options available to wizard PCs, increasing the range of options beyond "do nothing or deplete resources" and thereby also making it viable to reduce the power of wizard spells, thus dealing with the nova problem.​


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You need to state how many hit points the PCs have in this system, and then I'll be happy to use it for further discussion.
> 
> JK, does this work for you?



Well, I assumed that the most important thing is the relative power of these powers *note to self: need a thesaurus*.

Furthermore, not the PC hitpoints matter, the NPC / enemy hitpoints. (this might actually boil down to be the same, but it's important to remind that the player's abilities are not used against the player themself)

Typical Minion (used in group size three to four times the party size): 10-20 hp
Typical Monster (used in group size equal to party size): 60-100 hp
Typical "Boss" Monster (used alone, possible augmented by a few minions): 400+ hp

General numbers:
The offensive At Will Powers will often be enough to kill a minion.
The offensive Per Encounter Power will often be enough to kill a group of minions or a typical monster.
No offensive power can directly take out the boss monster.

Keep in mind that encounters might be mixed with the various "sizes" of monsters, and that  the terrain and distribution of monsters is variable (there is no guarantee that all minion type monsters cluster in a 20 ft area, for example - but they might). Some monsters have different movement capabilities, monsters have various types of attacks (spells, arrows, natural or manufactured melee weapons and so on)


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Strange analogy because marraige is a good example of a resource that is *NOT* per encounter.  Unless your wife forgets everything that you do a minute after you do it.  It's your aggregate behavior over weeks and years that determines the character of your marraige AFAIK and so I really see this analogy as making my case.





			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> the marriage is not the resource in question, I think. The marriage is the same as "survival or succeeding at the adventures goal".



What I had in mind is the marriage as encounter. It does not follow that cultivating a successful relationship is uninteresting, _just because_ if I do it well the relationship has no chance of failing. It is not uninteresting even if I believe that I will do it well, and therefore there is very little chance of failure.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If all of your resources in marriage "reset" after each encounter, then this would be an adequate analogy.  However, they don't even "reset" per day.



I had in mind the marriage as an encounter, and one in which (by rough analogy) one has a mix of "at will" and "per encounter" resources.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> This is a strange example to me.  One reason is that you are the one deciding if you win or lose in this situation - I'm not really sure this is comparable to what goes on in DnD where there's more of an objective system exposed to the players that tells them whether they succeed or fail.  You're "winning" these arguments AFAIK because you say that you do.



I'm "winning" these arguments because arguments that refute my position are not being made. In my experience this is pretty common in academia - at least in literary disciplines, but I'd be surprised if many undergraduate maths students are capable of finding holes in the proofs that their teachers are producing.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Another thing is that something is interesting for a variety of reasons and I can't tell what those are in your example.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Your students are also learning something, presumably, and seeing how they'll react might be interesting.  As a player I'm not all that interested in how the 3 goblins conduct themselves during the battle - they get killed and the game moves on.  I'm also not interested in how impressed the goblins are with my fighting ability.
> 
> Finally, in order to defend your position you have to do some "interesting thinking" but I don't see really why it's all that interesting.  With a 0% chance (as you describe) of actually choosing an ineffective argument, how is it all that interesting?  In my own experiences situations that have a 0% chance of failure don't seem to me to have the characteristics you describe.



Now most of what you say here is true - different experiences have different sources of interest. But one thing you suggest I don't agree with: it can be interesting to work out an argument that has a negligible chance of failing. In fact, that's my job: I'm not a practising lawyer, nor am I a debater, and so don't get the thrill of having to put my arguments in court. My job is to come up with arguments that persuade my students and my colleagues.

Of course, when I'm addressing my colleagues, the likelihood of holeproof arguments first time round is less than with students, but the aim is to eventually tighten the thing up until it does withstand all criticism. The pleasure, for me, is not in the risk of being torn apart in a colloquium.

But you are right that this activity might be uninteresting for some people. And of course, therefore, this example doesn't prove that per-encounter resources will produce fun D&D. It does show, however, that the general proposition "If you have no chance of failure, it won't be interesting" is false. It all depends on _why_ there is no chance of failure - some ways of ensuring there is no chance of failure are themselves interesting. I think the 4e designers are capable of thinking of such ways in the context of RPG design. Jackelope King and I have both given examples of such mechanics from existing games.

Not everyone will want to play that game - just as not everyone wants to play 1st ed AD&D. WoTC obviously has a reason to think that one sort of game will be more popular than the other.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> Now most of what you say here is true - different experiences have different sources of interest. But one thing you suggest I don't agree with: it can be interesting to work out an argument that has a negligible chance of failing. In fact, that's my job: I'm not a practising lawyer, nor am I a debater, and so don't get the thrill of having to put my arguments in court. My job is to come up with arguments that persuade my students and my colleagues.




I think I see what you're saying here.  It reminds me of one thing I said earlier:  if I was suddenly transported into a DnD world as a 20th level fighter, I think I would find a fight with a goblin to be extremely fascinating.  Partly because of a lack of familiarity, perhaps not being able to see the dice, and just the sights, sounds, and whatever that would all be unique and interesting.  If WotC can create such an experience with 4E then I'm sold, but I would consider it highly improbable that they would make such a leap.

But that aside, your analogy speaks more for what I'd call, maybe, "aesthetic pleasure" or something.  I don't need to win or lose in order to enjoy playing music for instance.  I don't need to win or lose this conversation to enjoy having it as another example.  Maybe there's some way of making DnD combat aesthetically pleasing by itself, like I allude to in my first paragraph.  I'm not familiar with a game or game system that has ever done this, though I haven't played many outside of DnD.  Those games that I've played that have focus on aethetically pleasing elements have, IME, avoided combat altogether.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> But you are right that this activity might be uninteresting for some people.




I've seen wordsmith-type DMs try to salvage a boring combat encounter by lots of flavor text - "that lone wolverine is really scary and you 10th level PCs should be shaking in your boots" kind of thing.  

What you describe AFAICT is interesting in the abstract, I'm not that much of a hack-and-slasher that I would/do pass up chances to add other elements to the game other than win/loss.  The bottom line though is that based on my (perhaps limited, mortal that I am) experience, there's no real advantage to a per-encounter resource situation that enhances any of those things, they're all possible in the 3E system.

One thing I will acknowledge is that any given "dimension of interest" of an encounter has the chance to interfere with the other dimensions.  Resource management can interfere with the story (or vice versa).  Then again death can interfere with the story.  Pretty much anything can beside the story.  

So, a thousand posts later, I'm starting to make a short list of things that I think that the per-encounter side of this argument could acknowledge and get us closer to agreeing to disagree.  One is that the per-encounter resource game will be more dangerous - although from your arguments above we're some ways from that.  The other is that per-encounter reduces the "dimensions of interest" of encounters by one, in order to facilitate story-based play.  Maybe we're close to agreeing on that? 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I think the 4e designers are capable of thinking of such ways in the context of RPG design. Jackelope King and I have both given examples of such mechanics from existing games.




Was the "archer with the tokens for various combat actions" one of the examples you mean here?



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Not everyone will want to play that game - just as not everyone wants to play 1st ed AD&D. WoTC obviously has a reason to think that one sort of game will be more popular than the other.




On that topic, I've posted links from two blogs, one from a WotC designer and one from a former one, and both seem to recognize and appreciate the inherent benefits of retaining some per-day resource management in the game.  My guess is that 4E will include this as well, and the increase in per-encounter resources for certain classes will get us the best of both worlds.  My guess is that this debate about "per-encounter" resources is largely an excercise in logic because I really don't think 4E is going to go this direction.  Wyatt indicated in his blog that "early versions of 4E" had gone this route, but the implication was that it was found to be undesireable.


----------



## Mallus

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So is that why Paizo sells so well revamping old Greyhawk ideas?



Because some people's taste didn't change.



> Maybe it's not as simple as you're trying to suggest.



Yes it is. There are any number of legitimate play styles, and 'smart play' is entirely dependent on your priorities. It's fine to state a preference for Gygaxian-style play, but infering that you're a superior player because of that preference is absurd. In order for that to be true there'd have to be one ideal/preferred mode of play, wouldn't there? 

See, it is that simple.



> Change for the sake of change.



Does it really look like that to you? It looks to me like WotC has been incorporating a lot of the design changes for 4e in the 3.5e supplements over the last several years, like per-encounter resources for fighter-types and rogues, at-will magic use, etc. They've been    been working on the prototype for 4e while selling us 3.5 material, not to mention the near-beta version of 4e, SWSE...

WotC has been collecting data on what sells/works. Seems pretty savvy to me. While that's no ironclad guarantee of the finished product's quality, it sure as hell doesn't look like 'change for the sake of change'.  



> I think you're overstating the simplicity (though I could be wrong as the sentence is somewhat cryptic).



Try this: the predominant mode of play has changed significantly since 1st edition. One cannot infer the growing stupidity of the D&D playing audience from this. 

Clearer, yes? I'm really not a cryptic person.


----------



## gizmo33

Mallus said:
			
		

> Because some people's taste didn't change.




Actual "people" were absent in the statement about "tastes", I wasn't really sure what you meant by that.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> It's fine to state a preference for Gygaxian-style play, but infering that you're a superior player because of that preference is absurd.




I agree.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> See, it is that simple.




No, I don't see.  Recasting what you said is not any simpler than the situation either.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Does it really look like that to you?




What you said looked like that to me.  What you were advocating looked like you were defending change simply by virtue that it was change (again, I do find "tastes change" to be cryptic as an isolated sentence, but in the context of the rest of what you wrote it had the meaning to me that I've described).  What I *wasn't* addressing was the motives of WotC, which I'm pretty sure are not change for the sake of change.  I think making money and making an interesting game would be two huge (and related) motives for 4E, but that wasn't my original point.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> WotC has been collecting data on what sells/works.




None of James Wyatt's blog entries make any reference to this data.  It's a combination of his personal game experiences with some general cause-and-effect reasoning.  I don't know of any evidence that what you're saying here is happening, much less that it is a significant part of the design process though I wouldn't be surprised if it were there somewhere.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Try this: the predominant mode of play has changed significantly since 1st edition. One cannot infer the growing stupidity of the D&D playing audience from this.




I agree, the people playing now are basically the same as those that played then - I'm not a grognard in that way.  However, one of the logical corrollaries of that is that 4E is going to have problems, just like 1E had, and I'm just speaking out to try to avoid as many of those as possible.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Clearer, yes? I'm really not a cryptic person.



I never meant to make a statement about you personally and i don't have an opinion about whether or not you are cryptic.  I would assume that what you are saying about yourself as a person is correct.  I found what you wrote to be cryptic, which is not the same thing.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> For the first combat, sure. For the first 100 combats, maybe. For 1,000? For 10,000? How many of these battles where you'e down to the last Death From Above and Fireball do you have to have before you notice that you're always down to....but almost never cross...that threshold? How long does it take you to realize that the "down to the last" encounters are filler?



I'm not sure to what extent your questions are rhetorical. But if, in fact, it takes 10000 encounters before the game becomes a mechanical chore rather than an exciting (for a game player) suite of choices, then that is about 40 years of play (assuming 5 encounters per week at 50 playing weeks per year). A game which can maintain interest for that long, at that intensity of play, would be a major design achievement, I would think.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It is absolutely true, especially as one grows used to a new system (i.e., the aforementioned "shine" period) that a player might not know, within a given circumstance, _which_ of his powers is most significant.  If you believe that, after playing the game for a year or so, players will not know which powers are most significant in any normal circumstance, then, yes, this is a valid criticism of my position.



OK, well I have suggested exactly this, namely, that players won't know. And I have suggested that this is so for two reasons:

(1) They may be ignorant of the encounter parameters (at least at the start of the encounter) - this has been suggested by the several comments from designers about the variability of monster roles, meaning that inferences to role cannot be drawn just from creature type.

(2) In my view the more important reason, that in a system of per-encounter abilities the player's choices, over the course of the encounter, determine whether or not it is "mere filler." So, until those choices become purely automatic, it will be interesting for the players to have to make decisions to bring it about that the encounter poses little threat.​


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I _do_ assume that the average player, however, in any given situation is automatically going to choose whichever resource seems most significant within that context, except as using that resource has repercussions.



I agree, except that I dispute the adverb "automatically". If the assessment of significance is difficult - because the options are broad, the mathematics subtle, the context uncertain (both mechanically and perhaps in other respects) and the interactions between the choices of multiple party members important - then making the optimal choice can itself be an interesting and satisfying experience. I see this every time I GM my games. It's possible that my players are unique, but I've got no reason to think there are not others like them.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> However, the more frequently, and the greater ease, with which you can renew resources, it is also true that the less carefully you must micromanage them.



I don't accept this as true in general. For example, my bank account is neither easily nor frequently renewed. But I don't micromanage it, and have little interest in doing so. My pay goes in, my mortgage and other bills come out - and that's about it.

On the other hand, when I cook I can easily renew my resources, and I can always start again - and indeed I do, every evening or two. But I still micromanage my cooking in a way that I do not my finances. One reason is that I enjoy cooking more than banking. But another is that I can make meaningful choices about cooking, whereas I can't with my finances - all my money is already allocated for me by the overheads of life.

Now, these examples are not drawn from gaming. So how relevant are they? Dunno. But they show the general claim is not true. And I have no real reason to suppose the claim is true in respect of RPGs - for example, during an encounter most of my RM players micromanage their Adrenal Move choices (per-encounter) at least as closely as their spell point choices (per-day), because they know that the former is at least as important as the latter to their success in an encounter, and they care about the encounter they are in.

An additional complicating factor here is that while per-encounter abilities renew more frequently and with greater ease than do per-day abilities _in game_, it is an open question whether or not they do so _in real life_, which is where the players are experiencing their interest and their pleasure. If succeeding at encounters becomes a tactically more engaging process with the new mechanics, it may well be that the abilities reset with more frequency but less ease, because winning encounters is a greater mental challenge (but not, necessarily, because of a greater in-game threat to the PCs).



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "Imagine in any given encounter, you could only use one or two of these abilities, not all? Which one is the better choice?" is a repercussion.   Repercussions are, IMHO, a good thing.  It is perfectly possible to have repercussions within a given encounter; the effects of Haste in 1e are a good example of this.  However, nothnig I have seen from WotC yet indicates that "repercussions = fun" is in their lexicon.



In 1st ed AD&D haste ages the caster 3 years - generally insiginficant, at least within the context of an encounter - but as far as I recall does not trigger a system shock roll. I'm pretty sure the latter is a 2nd ed innovation. (A quick scan of OSRIC suggests that the aging is 2 years, but there is still no mention of system shock.)

The sorts of repercussions that Jackelope King has in mind are, I think, opportunity costs. These are real repercussions which take effect immediately.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I also assume that, while individual encounters might be fun, the context of those encounters lends them a large part of their meaning.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I feel that it is self-evident that actions that are relevant to the overarching game are inherently more interesting than actions that are not.  Indeed, if this was not the case, the game might as well be DDM, where you stage various skirmishes that are unrelated -- or tangentially related -- to each other.



I don't think this is disputed. What is disputed is the following: (i) that context can give players an incentive to play encounters well, where "playing well" means "deploying one's per-encounter resources so as to win without depleting one's per-day resources"; (ii) that purely per-day resources are an obstacle to generating compelling contexts for encounters.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I find it rather telling that, while you might have to make the same sort of decisions fighting 4 goblins at 10th level as you do fighting something that can hurt you, a great many people suggest that the 4 goblins should be handwaved, while the other fight should not.  And I find it rather telling that, although this parallel has been brought up again and again, it hasn't exactly been addressed by those claiming that fights which have tactical decisions, but no repercussions beyond the encounter, are as interesting as those which have both.



Under the current rules, in the fight vs goblins the fighter has nothing interesting to do except move into the middle of the goblins, and then full attack and cleave; while the magic-user has nothing interesting to do except either waste spells, or declare each turn "I do nothing". Thus it is uninteresting.

With the introduction of per-encounter resources it becomes marginally more interesting, because the magic-user at least has something to do. However, if the goblins really pose no threat then it is still relatively uninteresting.

Supppose, however, that the goblins have a chance of winning the encounter _if the players are tactically sloppy_ - for example, they might be able to swarm the fighter and overbear her. In core 3E this is still relatively uninteresting, because the tactical choices are rather limited - for example, the fighter's only trade-off is between moving (which on its own is not that spectacular) and full attack, while the wizard's only trade-off is between expending resources and doing nothing. The goal of a properly-designed suite of per-encounter abilities is to make these trade-offs and optimisations interesting and pleasurable as a play experience. Each encounter is like a mini-adventure, in which decisions are taken so as to maximise the likelihood of success, and minimise the emergence of a real chance of failure.

Thus, as I have frequently said, the outcome all depends on the good design of the suite of character abilities. Luckily, WoTC seems to have employed some good designers.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Per-day 1:  Special ability that allows you to do an average 50 points of damage to a single target.  Using it also means that you can no longer use per-encounter ability 1.
> 
> Per-day 2:  Special ability that allows you to do an average 25 points of damage to two targets.  Using it also means that you can no longer use per-encounter ability 2



I have already noted that if per-day abilities are designed so that they are simply the optimal choices for winning a typical encounter, then your prediction of a failure to solve the 15-minute day problem becomes highly plausible.

For me, this is a reason to suppose that per-day abilities will be things like "second wind" and "teleport".



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> My argument, at its basic level, is that preventing a 15-minute adventuring day is a function of repercussions for using resources indiscriminately.  The per-day/per-encounter paradigm will not solve it without significant repercussions, and AFAICT, actually removes existing repercussions from play.



I posted a long list of reasons for disagreeing with this, based on a different diagnosis from yours of the causes of the 15-minute day. You have not responded, but I'll post them again in case others are interested:



			
				me said:
			
		

> Mechanically, I see the problem this way. To have a meaningful effect on an encounter, a wizard typically has to cast a spell of somewhere near his/her maximum spell level. A wizard does not have more than 4 to 8 such spells. Therefore, the first encounter of the day is either one in which the wizard goes nova, thus overshadowing the fighters in that encounter, or is one in which the wizard does nothing for one or more rounds. The 4e designers clearly take the view that the latter is an option that provides a poor play experience for the wizard's player - and I assume that the typical play experience bears this out, with the players of wizards opting to do something each round, and thus nova-ing.
> 
> After 1 or 2 encounters, then, the wizard has nothing left to do. Thus the party rests. Furthermore, to make those encounters interesting in the face of the wizard's nova-ing, the GM ramps up the EL to somewhere above that of the party - and in these encounters, the overshadowing of the fighter by the wizard only increases.
> 
> One solution to this state of affairs is the 1st ed one. The players of wizards are encouraged to hold back, not acting in many rounds, conserving their resources for when they are crucial. Wandering monsters and other constraints on resting support this solution. It is a solution which 3E has obviously abandoned and which 4e will not embrace.
> 
> An alternative solution is to make all abilities at-will. In such a system, a wizard would use a wizard's blast every round just as a fighter swings his/her sword every round. This solution, in order to generate mechanically interesting challenges, has to go to win/lose encounters (and presumably this is how 3E is playing once one embraces the one-encounter-per-day paradigm). As an alternative, of course, it might look to other thresholds of signficance - and at this point a genuine at-will mechanic is preferable to a one-encounter-per-day mechanic, because the latter just imposes a pointless constraint on those other thresholds of significance.
> 
> A variant of the at-will solution is one which throws per-encounter abilities into the mix. These are then able to generate the sort of mechanical interest that I described above in relation to Adrenal Moves in RM and HARP, but also do not get in the way of other thresholds of significance.
> 
> 4e seems to be going for a mix of this, plus per-day resources. As I've already acknowledged, if this model is to avoid the one-encounter-per-day problem, then it will be crucial that it not always be rational to lead with per-day resources. This is, as I have noted above, in part a question of design.
> 
> But it is not only a question of design. Because the availability of a wide range of non-per-day resources means that a wider range of alternative thresholds of significance become viable, it also becomes possible to introduce a wider range of reasons, derived from those other thresholds of significance, as to why it may be rational to conserve per-day resources. For example, it is obvious that a party which conserves per-day resources may be better able to proceed with the adventure, if the adventure is one in which time matters. And the presence of non-per-day resources makes such adventures more viable, by giving the wizard player something to do other than conserve resources for the adventure climax. (My reply to Gizmo33, post #1117, elaborates on this.)
> 
> Similarly, a party which conserves per-day resources may be better able to handle an encounter that comes unexpectedly, or turns out to be more difficult than was expected, or is one in which a player makes a mistaken choice which leads to the encounter really becoming a win/lose situation. These considerations all become important if the adventure is one in which the players cannot predict the likely number and sequence of encounters. And such an adventure becomes easier to design and to run when per-day resources are not the only resources to which a significant number of players have access.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Make up your own schedule of abilities, then.
> 
> Remember that the purpose is illustrative only.  You do not need (and in all likelihood, cannot obtain!) a 1:1 map of what 4e will be.  All you need is something illustrative of the types of choices that are possible.  We will look at that schedule of abilities, then, as a subset of possible designs, not to be conflated with the actual design.



I did this in post #1001. In a later post you answered my request for a comment on my example with the statement that it did not require a response. If you're now interested in considering it, I've reposted the relvant example below:

For example: it does not follow, from the fact that the players are not confident in any given round that they will win using per-encounter resources, that they will switch to per-day resources. This depends entirely on what the per-day resources are.

Suppose, for example, that a Figher's main per-day resource is a "second wind", which allows her to regain all her lost hit points via a swift action. Suppose also that a Fighter has an at-will ability, to use a swift action to add her level to her damage on a successful hit. Then as long as the player believes that the PC has enough hits left to survive another round's combat, and given that it is crucial to deliver as much damage per round as possible, that player will not use the "second wind". It is quite conceivable that this state of affairs can continue all the way to the end of the combat. What we then have is an exciting combat, which was significant because meaningful choices about resource deployment had to be made in every round, but no per-day resource was consumed.

Similar sorts of possibilities exist for a Wizard. Suppose the per-day resource is teleport, for example: then, until the Fighter has used her "second wind", the Wizard does not have to open the escape hatch because victory is still posible. But the Wizards still knows that this might be needed. And suppose, furthermore, that the teleport can be used as an immediate action - in any given round, the Wizard's player has to decide whether to use a swift action on his turn, thus ruling out the possibility of an immediate action until his next turn but making it less likely that it will be needed, because less likely that the Fighter will have to use her second wind (I may have mucked up the action sequencing rules there, but I think the general point still makes sense).

Or, suppose that the Wizard's per-day resource is a big area attack spell. Using this effectively requires the Fighter and Rogue to withdraw from the combat, thus (let's say) exposing the Wizard herself to attack. In any given round it may not make the most tactical sense to deploy that spell, because the martial characters might be (barely) holding their own, and the Cleric still has a per-day "heal all allies" ability left. But the Wizard, while making non-per-day attacks, might be manoeuvring into a position where, if the big gun does have to be used, it effectiveness will be maximised, the risk to him will be minimised and the possibility of safe withdrawal by the martial characters will be achieved.

What all of these examples have in common is (i) that the acquisition of relevant information about the encounter by the players is dynamic - in the sense that it occurs over time during the encounter - and (ii) that the interaction of each PC's abilities, and of the abilities of each with the abilities of the others, means that knowledge of a genuine risk to the party does not make the deployment of per-day resources the automatic solution.​


----------



## Mallus

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Maybe there's some way of making DnD combat aesthetically pleasing by itself, like I allude to in my first paragraph.



Bingo! (that's certainly another locus of interest)

I'd describe most of combats in my current game as 'aesthetically pleasing' rather that 'overtly challenging', and the players keep coming back after 3 years.

Requisite plug: you can read all about it in the Story Hour in my sig.



> I'm not familiar with a game or game system that has ever done this, though I haven't played many outside of DnD.  Those games that I've played that have focus on aethetically pleasing elements have, IME, avoided combat altogether.



Try playing M&M. It's still D20, still plenty crunchy, but it's pretty much a given that you won't die and virtually all powers are at-will. And it's a blast; sometimes just using a character's abilities in creative ways is enough. Well, that and saving the world...


----------



## Mallus

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Actual "people" were absent in the statement about "tastes", I wasn't really sure what you meant by that.



The 'people' part was implied.



> What you said looked like that to me.  What you were advocating looked like you were defending change simply by virtue that it was change...



I think you're mistaking me for someone else. My positions in this thread can be summed up as:

1) D&D doesn't need to rely on resource attrition to provide player challenge.

2) Other successful systems do not use resource attrition, or use it in a much more limited fashion.

3) The attrition model doesn't suit my preferred style of play.

4) No ones offered a concrete reason why such an attrition-less/lite model works for some games, but not D&D. 

5) Mistaking your preferred play style for 'smarter play' is vain. Also dumb.

That's it. Wait, for the sake of discussion, I'll add something new...

D&D's per-day class abilities (ie spells) have traditionally been too decisive (though 3.0 was a step in the right direction). It's bad design, IMHO, to give a few classes the really decisive abilities, then try and balance things by giving limited uses. It creates mutually incompatible play imperatives('charge!','camp!), it means casters either 'win' the fight or basically sit idle. 

I think the design goal should be to define the class abilities in such a way that every class can meaningfully contribute each round of an encounter. Or at least closer to that.



> None of James Wyatt's blog entries make any reference to this data.



And? Why is his blog so important?

My point was simply that new rules systems that first appeared in popular 3.5 supplements will be part of 4e. Do you think this is a coincidence?


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> your analogy speaks more for what I'd call, maybe, "aesthetic pleasure" or something.



I think you're probably right here - it's something in the neighbourhood of aesthetics. It's the pleaure of doing a complex activity well. If I understand Aristotle properly, he held this to be the highest form of pleasure. Whether or not that's right, I think it is a genuine form of pleasure for many people.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Maybe there's some way of making DnD combat aesthetically pleasing by itself.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I've seen wordsmith-type DMs try to salvage a boring combat encounter by lots of flavor text - "that lone wolverine is really scary and you 10th level PCs should be shaking in your boots" kind of thing.



I don't know about you, but I find this GM-ing style a bit lame (at least in D&D-type games - it has a place in Call of Cthulhu).

So here is where I think I have to insist that the pleasure is not aesthetic in any narrow sense, ie does not result from the experience. Because, as you said in your post, I am not actually fighting a goblin - I'm sittting at a table rolling dice and doing maths. The pleasure I have in mind is that of _doing the maths right_, so that the PCs survive the encounter and can go on to do whatever it is they have to do.

This sort of play depends, to my mind, on two things: the players have to enjoy the optimisation problem - I think this can be taken for granted as true of many game players, but not necessarily all; and the players have to have a reason to care about the PCs surviving the encounter. The latter is provided by non-mechanical thresholds of significance.

If the non-mechanical threshold of significance is lacking, then the game will degenerate into a series of disjointed encounters, like a miniatures tournament (as RC suggested above). The analogue, in classic D&D, is a game which is just a sequence of mindless dungeon crawls. Because the dungeon crawls typically take longer, the alleged mindlessness may take longer to become apparent. So a game with per-encounter resources but without other thresholds of significance will become more tired more quickly, I think.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> What you describe AFAICT is interesting in the abstract, I'm not that much of a hack-and-slasher that I would/do pass up chances to add other elements to the game other than win/loss.  The bottom line though is that based on my (perhaps limited, mortal that I am) experience, there's no real advantage to a per-encounter resource situation that enhances any of those things, they're all possible in the 3E system.



This is where I disagree. The 3E system (in its core) does not give fighters a wide range of choices - the only trade off is between move and full attack. And when spell-casters choose, it is typically between casting devastating spells or else doing nothing. What is needed, to get the sort of play I am describing, is to give fighters more choices, and to give wizards more choices that are less impactful on play. The per-encounter model achieves this.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> No, wizard's don't have a *deep* bag of resources - remember the 9:00-9:15 adventuring problem?



But you would agree, wouldn't you, that they have a *shallow* bag of *very big* resources? - and that this combination is part of what can give rise to a 15-minute day. The per-encounter system is meant to smooth this out, I believe, in the way I've tried to explain in the paragraph above.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> One thing I will acknowledge is that any given "dimension of interest" of an encounter has the chance to interfere with the other dimensions.  Resource management can interfere with the story (or vice versa).  Then again death can interfere with the story.  Pretty much anything can beside the story.



But some things interfere more than others, I think. Pure per-day resource place constraints on adventure design that some (perhaps many?) gaming groups experience as signficant.

Turning now to a slightly different topic:



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> IMO PCs don't have to manage resources with any great effort unless one of two things is true:  the encounter poses a significant chance of killing a PC, or, there are long time-period (per-day, for example) ramifications for using a resource.



What about the following scenario: the encounter does not pose a significant chance of killing a PC, _provided that_ the players manage their resources well within the scope of the encounter?

If you think this makes no sense, then you will have to reject my arguments, and I think those of Jackelope King (but obviously he can speak for himself if I've got him wrong).

But to me it is a real scenario, that I see quite frequently in games I GM, and I get the impression (from remarks on monster design, encounter design, character build rules, etc) that it is the sort of scenario the 4e designers are trying to support.

The "archer with the tokens for various combat actions" is an example of the sort of design that I think supports this type of play. Another example I gave earlier was that of Adrenal Moves in RM and HARP.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So, a thousand posts later, I'm starting to make a short list of things that I think that the per-encounter side of this argument could acknowledge and get us closer to agreeing to disagree.  One is that the per-encounter resource game will be more dangerous - although from your arguments above we're some ways from that.



I don't agree that it has to be like this, because of the argument that I just gave. But what we can agree to disagree on, I think, is _whether or not it is possible to get sustained playing enjoyment out of encounters where the risk is low, *provided the players play well*, and where playing well requires complex and contextually-sensitive decision-making_.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The other is that per-encounter reduces the "dimensions of interest" of encounters by one, in order to facilitate story-based play.  Maybe we're close to agreeing on that?



I would prefer to say, swaps one dimension of interest - operational play - to open up a new one - the sort of tactical play I've described above, and which I argue core 3E does not provide for because of its overly narrow range of choices for both fighters and wizards.

But I do agree that per-encounter abilities make operational play difficult if not impossible (it all becomes about equipment, rather than inherent abilities). And I do agree it thereby removes a constraint on "story-based" play (while, for the reasons I have given, still allowing encounters to have mechanical interest). And as I said above, I think that _without_ significant non-mechanical thresholds of signficance per-encounter play will become tired more quickly than operational, per-day driven, play.

So we do agree that per-encounter resources take something away, namely, the possibility of satisfying operational play (again, I am assuming that equipment-management doesn't really cut it).

But I don't agree that it will have to make encounters more dangerous, and I don't agree that it reduces the mechanical dimensions of interest - and for both of these my reason is the same, namely, that it makes possible a new dimension of interest that 3E, in its core form, does not really facilitate. If I'm wrong about this - either conceptually, or if 4e doesn't deliver on the concept, then obviously my position falls down in a screaming heap.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I've posted links from two blogs, one from a WotC designer and one from a former one, and both seem to recognize and appreciate the inherent benefits of retaining some per-day resource management in the game.  My guess is that 4E will include this as well, and the increase in per-encounter resources for certain classes will get us the best of both worlds.  My guess is that this debate about "per-encounter" resources is largely an excercise in logic because I really don't think 4E is going to go this direction.  Wyatt indicated in his blog that "early versions of 4E" had gone this route, but the implication was that it was found to be undesireable.



Here is what I take to be the key passage from Wyatt's blog:

When you have the right balance between powers that refresh all the time and powers that are more limited, the game becomes more interesting. Strong power design also helps. When some of your powers are per-day, you're constantly asking yourself, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?" When your powers are well-designed, you also ask the question, "Is this the right round to use this power?"​
In defending the rationality of per-encounter design, and especially its capacity to solve the 15-minute problem, I have been emphasising what Wyatt calls "strong power design", which means that there is no automatic answer to the question of what to do. Without this, there can be little mechanical interest in per-encounter play - it is just a question of starting from the top, rolling the dice, and hope you get lucky.

I agree that mixing in per-day resources helps in some ways. Obviously it creates the problem RC sees, of just re-opening the prospects of a 15 minute day. Strong power design is crucial to avoiding that. But _provided one has a reason to conserve resources_, it introduces additional complexity, and therefore additional mechanical interest, into the play of an encounter.

That need to conserve resources will come from non-mechanical thresholds of significance - as has always been the case (if there are no plot constraints - like honour or guards or wanderers or time bombs or whatever - then there is no reason not to rest and regain resources). What I think is interesting is that the introduction of per-encounter resources, by freeing up certain constraints on these other thresholds of significance, might make it easier to introduce a wider range of reasons for wanting to conserve resources.

I should add, Gizmo33, that I don't feel we are that far apart in terms of the way we are looking at the pieces. But it may be that we do have different views about what can make for an interesting RPG experience.


----------



## pemerton

Mallus said:
			
		

> Wait, for the sake of discussion, I'll add something new...
> 
> D&D's per-day class abilities (ie spells) have traditionally been too decisive (though 3.0 was a step in the right direction). It's bad design, IMHO, to give a few classes the really decisive abilities, then try and balance things by giving limited uses. It creates mutually incompatible play imperatives('charge!','camp!), it means casters either 'win' the fight or basically sit idle.
> 
> I think the design goal should be to define the class abilities in such a way that every class can meaningfully contribute each round of an encounter. Or at least closer to that.



Allow me to disagree - this point is not new to the discussion - and to agree - I have been trying to explain just this thing (although less concisely than you did) for multiple posts now.

I think the rest of your post (ie points 1 to 5) is pretty much true also.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm sittting at a table rolling dice and doing maths. The pleasure I have in mind is that of _doing the maths right_, so that the PCs survive the encounter and can go on to do whatever it is they have to do.




What you're saying in the "so that the PCs survive the encounter" statement demonstrates to me AFAICT, as has been the case time and time again, that the real fall-back position for this per-encounter design is to really make each encounter have a significant chance of PC death.  The protests against this so far IMO have been highly abstract, and I find again and again when the conversation and examples get more practical and natural (ie. not designed to refute this specific point), we're back to the fatality thing.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> What is needed, to get the sort of play I am describing, is to give fighters more choices, and to give wizards more choices that are less impactful on play. The per-encounter model achieves this.




A mixed model also achieves this (and still retains operational dimension) and this is what I'm advocating.  I agree with your basic idea that fighters need a little help.  I'm much less enthusiastic about fighter powers that are cartoonish in their effect - super whirlwind attacks and that sort of thing.  



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> But you would agree, wouldn't you, that they have a *shallow* bag of *very big* resources? - and that this combination is part of what can give rise to a 15-minute day. The per-encounter system is meant to smooth this out, I believe, in the way I've tried to explain in the paragraph above.




Yes, I agree that wizard powers (as is historically the case in prior editions) are few and powerful.  And I should be clear that I actually support the idea of wizards getting a mixed bag of per-day and per-encounter.  However, I don't think it will solve the problems that many people on your side of the argument have identified, so I ultimately feel that logically what your reasoning will lead to will be an *all per-encounter resource* situation - the kind that Wyatt is suspicious of.

So *some* per-encounter resources and per-day resources among the classes will mitigate the 9-9:15 problem as well as the "wizard nova" problem, but ultimately there will still be per-day management, which leads to the line of reasoning that RC has pursued (though I have differences that are probably minor).



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> But some things interfere more than others, I think. Pure per-day resource place constraints on adventure design that some (perhaps many?) gaming groups experience as signficant.




I find the limitations on PCs not being able to fight 50 non-trivial encounters in a day to be a comfortable limitation that doesn't interfere with my stories.  PC death, according to *numerous* posts on this board, interferes with story development, and I'm pretty sure that will be the next thing to go if this idea becomes influential since I don't see the difference.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> What about the following scenario: the encounter does not pose a significant chance of killing a PC, _provided that_ the players manage their resources well within the scope of the encounter?




There's that basic idea again:  manage your resources well (ie. non-trivial, and thus possibily unsuccessful) or die.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> The "archer with the tokens for various combat actions" is an example of the sort of design that I think supports this type of play. Another example I gave earlier was that of Adrenal Moves in RM and HARP.




As I said, IME my players (and me as a player) wouldn't think much of making these choices Kill the mooks or the bandit leader?  Who really cares how you do it since it's inevitable (the premise that the encounter is not deadly, unless they are trying to escape, in which case they'll bring more insignificant forces, or forces that *can* kill the PCs, and so it really is a potentially deadly encounter after all).  

This basic tactical situation already exists in 3E, although I think such mechanics might be more interesting if added to the game, they won't fundementally make things more interesting once their novelty wears off IMO.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> (Here is what I take to be the key passage from Wyatt's blog:




Depends on what you mean by "key".  He's saying alot of other stuff.  In order of "most concrete" to "most speculative", his most concrete statements are that "button mashing" is the basic experience of playing a warlock-style character in WoW.  He *speculates* that the problem can be solved by what he nebulously says is something more restrictive than per-encounter, and also "strong power design" but then doesn't follow it up with any experience-based evidence.

Unanswered by this statement are questions like:  if I'm always asking the question "is this the right round to use this power" then it is highly possible that I will *never* use the given power, in which case we're back to the situation of the "barbarian not having any fun because he's not raging because he waited the whole encounter for the right time and it never came".


----------



## IanArgent

Tossed in as food for thought. 

I ran, from roughly 92-'93 through '99, a shadowrun game that varied from 2-12 PCs at various times. SR has no resource management as D&D would understand the term (there is some grand-strategy level resource management, I suppose) and I had an explicit policy of never killing PCs. And somehow I was able, on next to no prep time spent on mechanics (I would think up plot in the shower, throw it at PCs and see what happened) to challegne the players mentally and the PCs in every way possible. Now, I will admit to having players who were capable of not metagaming their PCs reactions to possible death - but I had neither limited resources nor threats of random death in my toolbox - and any session of that game has been much better from both a player point of view and a GM point of view (the players I have now in my D&D game that were in the SR game would rather I ran that).

The key? Forcing the players to _think_. They had to deploy  their assets and resources cleverly to accomplish goals. I could always challenge the players at the level of adventure goals.

I find I'm fighting the system when I run D&D these days - I have no margin of error. And one of the biggest problems I fight is the abitrariness of "availability" of caster abilities - the PCs don't always know when it is appropriate to use resources, so they get underused. I have this same problem when I'm playing in a friend's game - should I use my spells now or hold off? (Its not helping that my character is deep in the valley of multi-class suck on his way to arcane trickster after a change in career path at 4th level - but that's another rant). It is almost always a better choice for me to attack or use a charge off a wand, because I need to sav ethe good stuff for the "next encounter" (which may or may not happen - we're _not_ in a dungeon right now and have a certain amount of freedom in pacing and encounter chaining.)


----------



## Stalker0

IanArgent said:
			
		

> It is almost always a better choice for me to attack or use a charge off a wand, because I need to sav ethe good stuff for the "next encounter" (which may or may not happen - we're _not_ in a dungeon right now and have a certain amount of freedom in pacing and encounter chaining.)




This is the insurance mindset. When buying most kinds of insurance, people forget that they are gambling not just on them needing the insurance, but that they will be alive to benefit from it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, I assumed that the most important thing is the relative power of these powers *note to self: need a thesaurus*.
> 
> Furthermore, not the PC hitpoints matter, the NPC / enemy hitpoints.




Obviously the PC hit points matter.  The level of danger the PCs face in a given encounter cannot be gagued without some clue as to what they can sustain.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Wyatt said:
			
		

> When some of your powers are per-day, you're constantly asking yourself, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?"




The 15-minute adventuring day problem arises from players _*not*_ asking themselves, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?"

Why do they not ask this?


EDIT:  Let me emphasize this, because it is the crucial question.  You might get lucky, and solve a problem through sheer happenstance, but in general it is better to understand why the problem exists and then target that reason.

Now, I say that the player who does this does not ask himself "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?" does not do so because the game rewards him for not doing so.  Using the big gun at the first hint of trouble increases his chance of survival.  The only cost to him is that he has to rest -- i.e., accept that his character adventures for 15 minutes before resting to recover and reset.  This is an acceptable (if not desireable) exchange for this player, or he would not do it.

If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.  

Jackalope, I hope that you will respond to this, but I will still examine encounters with you either way.  Otherwise, if anyone wants to further discuss this issue with me, you will please respond to this post.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The 15-minute adventuring day problem arises from players _*not*_ asking themselves, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?"
> 
> Why do they not ask this?
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Let me emphasize this, because it is the crucial question.  You might get lucky, and solve a problem through sheer happenstance, but in general it is better to understand why the problem exists and then target that reason.
> 
> Now, I say that the player who does this does not ask himself "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?" does not do so because the game rewards him for not doing so.  Using the big gun at the first hint of trouble increases his chance of survival.  The only cost to him is that he has to rest -- i.e., accept that his character adventures for 15 minutes before resting to recover and reset.  This is an acceptable (if not desireable) exchange for this player, or he would not do it.
> 
> If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.
> 
> Jackalope, I hope that you will respond to this, but I will still examine encounters with you either way.  Otherwise, if anyone wants to further discuss this issue with me, you will please respond to this post.
> 
> RC



My appologies. I've been swamped with classwork.

It's acceptable from a mechanical point of view, if not from a contextual point of view.


----------



## apoptosis

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The 15-minute adventuring day problem arises from players _*not*_ asking themselves, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?"
> 
> Why do they not ask this?
> 
> 
> EDIT:  Let me emphasize this, because it is the crucial question.  You might get lucky, and solve a problem through sheer happenstance, but in general it is better to understand why the problem exists and then target that reason.
> 
> Now, I say that the player who does this does not ask himself "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?" does not do so because the game rewards him for not doing so.  Using the big gun at the first hint of trouble increases his chance of survival.  The only cost to him is that he has to rest -- i.e., accept that his character adventures for 15 minutes before resting to recover and reset.  This is an acceptable (if not desireable) exchange for this player, or he would not do it.
> 
> If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.
> 
> Jackalope, I hope that you will respond to this, but I will still examine encounters with you either way.  Otherwise, if anyone wants to further discuss this issue with me, you will please respond to this post.
> 
> RC




As long as you have any per-day resource management your point will generally hold. I think what they are creating is a way to mitigate this effect to a degree.

I think Pmertons is probably being optimistic as I really think the scenario 9/10 times is going to be unleash your big per-encounter guns first (or basically it will be the same set of tactics in most every encounter). On the other hand reading many of Pmertons posts he (she) does have a nice grasp of game mechanics from several systems so he might have some insight i don't.

I think his idea of action tokens though is probably a good way to balance and bring more diversity to tactics, as actions have become the most valuable commodity in combat.

Apoptosis


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> It's acceptable from a mechanical point of view, if not from a contextual point of view.




If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.


----------



## Raven Crowking

apoptosis said:
			
		

> As long as you have any per-day resource management your point will generally hold.




I am not talking about resolving the problem here; merely with identifying it and its cause(s).

If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory. 


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.



Briefly, from a mechanical point of view, it's always desireable to enter an encounter with your full allotment of resources, but it's acceptable to enter an encounter with a merely sufficient allotment of resources (i.e., if an encounter can be bested with only 10% of your resources, then it's acceptable to enter that encounter with at least 10% of your resource allotment).

From a conceptual point of view, it goes against just about every fantasy genre for the heroes to rest while fully energized early in the morning for the sole reason of reseting their daily resources. If magic actually fatigued a caster, or if the party was legitimately at low health, then this is more acceptable, but when the sole reason for resting is to let the unscathed and energized party marshal its handful of expended daily resources, it absolutely shatters suspension of disbelief. This is a playstyle difference, I realize, but the fantasy genres that I look to emulate when I play D&D simply don't have this element. As was said many pages back, yes, they do have magical fatigue which must be slept off, but since expenditure of resources does not cause fatigue (except in rare cases, like the barbarian), then this element clashes with my view of what D&D should be trying to emulate.

Since fewer encounters under the proposed system will consume resources which can be triggered to replenish by sleeping, there will be less of a mechanical advantage to be gained from resting early and often. If the game is successful in making the encounters themselves more interesting (whether through increased tactical options, more cinematic gameplay, or through other means), much in the way that games such as _Iron Heroes_ did with Maneuvers, Stunts and Zones, then each individual encounter will be more fulfilling without encouraging the party to break and rest to the detriment of the versimilitude of the game. In my mind, this increased focus on making individual combats more fulfilling coupled with a system which does not encourage genre-breaking actions is an acceptable trade-off for the resource management which has been present in other editions of D&D.


----------



## apoptosis

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am not talking about resolving the problem here; merely with identifying it and its cause(s).
> 
> If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.
> 
> 
> RC




That would be difficult as I am agreeing with you   

i believe as long as you have any per-day resource the question of using a big gun now or later will evolve into the scenario you proposed. I think the addition of per-encounter resources just allows for maybe some mitigation of the problem of the 9-9:15 adventuring, as the casters might be more inclined to press forward as they do have some resources available in every encounter.

At the same time careful parties will eventually start the camping cycle so that they always have their big gun for every encounter in addition to their per-encounter abilities.

I actually LIKE the vancian system and have never had the camping issue others have. I think if it is an issue, as long as there are any per-day resources the camping cycle will still occur.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The 15-minute adventuring day problem arises from players _*not*_ asking themselves, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?"
> 
> Why do they not ask this?




Because I chose the wizard class.

I chose the wizard class because the way in which I want to interact with the game world is by casting spells.  If I'd wanted to be an archer, I'd be a fighter or a ranger.

I want to do something wizardly (cast an appropriate spell) in every encounter in which I play a part.

I would like to play a part in the majority of encounters.

I would like to play a part in the majority of the rounds of each combat encounter.

Therefore, I want to be able to cast a spell in the majority of the rounds of each combat encounter.

3E, because it is tied to a per-day formula based on the earlier "horde your resources" model of earlier D&D, does not give me enough spells to do this without buying wands or scrolls until I reach a relatively high level (at which point I am generally able to afford those wands I'd've like to have earlier in the game).

The power slope for my character is far too steep.  After just a couple combats of doing my wizardly thing, I'm unable to do anything wizardly for the rest of the day.

Therefore, I have an unpalatable choice to make.  I can either conserve my resources by "shooting my crossbow" (which violates my "Do something wizardly" precept) or expend my resources (which results in me running out of them very quickly compared to the other characters, which forces the 9:00 to 9:15 adventuring day).

By analogy:

Because I chose the ranger class.

I chose the ranger class because the way in which I want to interact with the game world is by being a stealthy archer.  If I'd wanted to be a major spellcaster, I'd be a wizard or a druid.

I want to do something rangery (attack with my bow or sneak about) in every encounter in which I play a part.

I would like to play a part in the majority of encounters.

I would like to play a part in the majority of the rounds of each combat encounters.

Therefore, I want to be able to attack with my bow in the majority of the rounds of each combat encounter.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Briefly, from a mechanical point of view





I am not talking about resolving the problem here; merely with identifying it and its cause(s).  Once we have identified the cause(s) we can talk sensibly about solutions.  

If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory. 


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Because I chose the wizard class.




I am not asking you to describe what classes you like, or what problems might exist within those classes.  I am merely attempting to identify the cause(s) of requiring rest.



> Therefore, I have an unpalatable choice to make.  I can either conserve my resources by "shooting my crossbow" (which violates my "Do something wizardly" precept) or expend my resources (which results in me running out of them very quickly compared to the other characters, which forces the 9:00 to 9:15 adventuring day).




If I understand you, you are saying that the 15 minute adventuring day problem happens because you use your best resources very quickly, and then need to rest to recover them.  You also seem to imply that the problem is that your best resources are limited in their usage per day, and that you simply do not want to conserve them.  Is this correct?

You also have another concern in that your remaining resources don't feel "wizardy" to you.  Again, is this correct?

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Obviously the PC hit points matter.  The level of danger the PCs face in a given encounter cannot be gagued without some clue as to what they can sustain.
> 
> RC



Okay. For "ease of use" I put all posts together. I adjusted some numbers and added a few abilities to make it (seemingly at the first glance at least) consistent.

ABILITIES
---------
Attack: At Will 1: Deal 20 points of damage to a single target at range
Attack: At Will 2: Deal 20 points of damage to a touched target and heal half the amount of damage (heal up to half your max hit points). (Excess) Healing can be transfered to a second touched character.
Attack: At Will 3: Your attack in the next round against the chosen enemy deals +30 points of damage if using At Will 1 or 2
Defense: At Will 4: Activate a Shield that grants +4 deflection to AC for 2 rounds (=> -20 % damage while active) or as long as you concentrate
Defense: At Will 5:: If you have an active shield, its bonus increases to +4 (=> -40% damage while active)
Utility: At Will 6: Clear rubble from a 2x2 squares area to allow unhampered movement for one round for anyone passing through
Utility: At Will 7: Detect Magical Auras

Attack: 1/Encounter 1: Deal 15 points of damage in a 4 square radius at range
Attack: 1/Encounter 2: Deal 80 points of damage to a single foe at range
Attack: 1/Encounter : Deal 80 points of damage to touched foe and heal yourself half damage. Excess hit points become temporary and last till the ability is refreshed. Can be transferred to a second touched character.
Utility: 1/Encounter 4: Fly Speed 120 ft
Utility: 1/Encounter 5: Climb Walls for the duration of the encounter
Utility: 1/Encounter 6: Write a arcane mark
Defense: 1/Encounter 7: Erect a Shield that grants a +4 deflection bonus to AC for all allies. (=> -20 % damage for all allies)
Defense: 1/Encounter 8: Dispel all magical effects on a single target or suppress its next magical attack 
Defense: Negate a normally successful attack as immediate action.

Attack: 1/Day 1: Deal 40 points of damage in a 4 square radius at range
Utility: 1/Day 2: Teleport yourself and all allies you touch to the next Teleportation Portal, City Centre or place you inscribed an Arcane Mark on
Defense: 1/Day 3: All allies enjoy a +2 resistance bonus to all defenses for the remainder of the day

Note: Attack, Defense and Utility designate "silos". In each encounter, you may use only one ability per silo (and only use it once)

MONSTERS
----------
Minion (used in group size three to four times the party size): 10-20 hp, Average Damage 5 per round
Average Monster (used in group size equal to party size): 60-100 hp, Average Damage 10 per round
"Boss" Monster (used alone, possible augmented by a few minions): 400+ hp, Average Damage 20 per round

PCs
----
Typical Characters Hit Points: 80 (average, range probably 60-100 like typical monsters)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am not asking you to describe what classes you like




I'm wondering if the absolutely rude tone of voice I'm reading this in is, based on your previous responses to me and others, intentional or my own addition.  Care to clarify?



> I am merely attempting to identify the cause(s) of requiring rest.




Since that's tied intimately in with the wizard class mechanics in the current edition of the rules, the two are not inseparable.



> If I understand you, you are saying that the 15 minute adventuring day problem happens because you use your best resources very quickly, and then need to rest to recover them.




Not even "your best resources," but "All of your wizardly resources."

A Wizard 5, assuming he memorizes nothing but combat spells and casts a spell every other round, can last somewhere around 26 *total* rounds of combat.  8 of those rounds are taken up by 0-level spells.

If he casts a spell every round, that's 13 *total* rounds of combat.

In actual play, the wizard's nominal endurance will be much shorter because several of those spells will not be available for use in combat; they're either long-term buffs (mage armor, etc.) or utility (knock, detect magic).

You can, of course, increase your magical endurance by spreading those spells farther apart, but that violates the "Do Something Wizardly" precept (and, in conjunction, the "Play a part in the majority of encounters" and "Play a part in the majority of the rounds of each combat encounter" precepts).

[This, of course, completely sets aside the Wizard 1 who gets, at most 10 rounds of combat in before the bell.]



> You also have another concern in that your remaining resources don't feel "wizardy" to you.  Again, is this correct?




That is correct.  "Shooting a crossbow" is not particularly wizardly.  It fits very well into the sniper rogue idiom, or the heavy-armored arballasteer idiom, or the "shoot them once then draw and charge" warrior idiom.

It is certainly a change for the better from previous editions (where it was "Throw a dart"), but that doesn't mean it cannot be further improved upon.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn,

I was ready to drop this argument and simply wait to see whether or not the same problem cropped up a year after 4e's release.  That, to me, would be evidenciary that the redesign didn't solve the problem.  After all, endlessly spinning one's wheels is absolutely a waste of time.  IMHO, of course.  This is the Interweb, where endless wheel spinning is a competition sport.    

But that wasn't good enough, apparently.  I had obviously forgotten that, in addition to argument by endless wheel spinning, misrepresentation of others' viewpoints is also an Interweb sport, especially in the event that they've cleared the field.  Of course, it isn't always easy to tell when someone is doing so intentionally or not; I have been accused of the same.  It is enough, though, to make me take one last foray into the ring.

So I am doing my best to avoid Endless Wheel Spinning Syndrome.  It seems clear that this can be done by taking the following steps, in order:

(1)  Identify cause(s) of the problem.
(2)  Determine whether or not proposed solution(s) address the cause(s) of the problem.
(3)  Where proposed solution(s) addresses the cause(s) of the problem, determine if they do so sufficiently to resolve the problem to a reasonable degree.

When I did my analysis, this is the order that I followed.  I have received many responses that attempt to suggest that my version of (2) or (3) are flawed, based upon a different (1) that remains undeclared.

Until and unless we can agree upon an identified cause of the problem (15-minute adventuring day), there is no point in attempting to analyze any solution.  IMHO, of course.  Therefore, I have no interest at this point in examining (2) or (3) until (1) is resolved.

If this is "absolutely rude" then I pray your indulgence.  Or, if you are unable to indulge me in this, your understanding that I am not going to address (2) or (3) until (1) is resolved, whether you (or anyone else) feels like examining (1) or not.

Which is also, BTW, why I am trying to narrow down your response into something that can be examined in light of the question "What is the cause(s) of the 15-minute adventuring day problem?"  The more concise and clear the answer you give is, the easier it is to examine it to see if, indeed, it is the (or one of the) cause(s).



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Not even "your best resources," but "All of your wizardly resources."




So, is it fair to say that you posit that the 15 minute adventuring day problem happens because you use your best (wizardly) resources very quickly, and then need to rest to recover them, coupled with the perception that your remaining resources don't feel "wizardy" to you. 

Again, is this correct?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, is it fair to say that you posit that the 15 minute adventuring day problem happens because you use your best (wizardly) resources very quickly, and then need to rest to recover them, coupled with the perception that your remaining resources don't feel "wizardy" to you.




It is correct that I believe that this is a relatively good summation of one of the [primary] causes of the 15 minute adventuring day.

I would not go so far to say, however, that it is the only cause (as there are at least two others in my head).

But let's limit the discussion to this for awhile.


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> What you're saying in the "so that the PCs survive the encounter" statement demonstrates to me AFAICT, as has been the case time and time again, that the real fall-back position for this per-encounter design is to really make each encounter have a significant chance of PC death.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There's that basic idea again:  manage your resources well (ie. non-trivial, and thus possibily unsuccessful) or die.



Gizmo33, I'll just pick up on these parts of your post because they seem to me to be the crux of our disagreement - or at least one thereof.

Consider a 1st level Orc warrior against a 10th level PC fighter, in 3E. Is the PC in danger?

Well, if the PC does nothing, the Orc _will_ kill him/her. After all , the Orc hits on a natural 20 (with a like chance of a crit) and delivers damage with each such hit.

However, the player of the PC can make a choice which eliminates the threat posed by the Orc, namely, s/he can declare an attack. One round will probably do for a 10th level fighter to kill the Orc.

Presumably, then, we would not describe this as a "dangerous" or "threatening" or "win/lose" encounter - because, through sensible choices, the player can eliminate the threat.

Conversely, the same PC against (let' say) a Stone Giant is in a "win/lose" encounter, because it has a good chance of hitting each round whatever the fighter does, and delivers about 3 or so hit dice worth of damage per round.

What I have in mind is that, with a more complex set of mechanics - giving players more choices as to how the encounter plays out - a greater range of encounters can be ones which (like the Orc) can be rendered non-win/lose through good play, but without the choices being so tedious or obvious, but equally without becoming like the encounter with the Stone Giant, in which no range of choices can eliminate the significant risk of death posed by the encounter.

Because the choices would be non-trivial, the encounter would (in round 1, before effective choices have been made by the players) be one in which a significant threat is posed to the PCs. But unlike the Stone Giant encounter, the threat would be not simply one of raw probability.

This is a type of threat which the mechanics of core 3E do not really allow to be posed. It is similar in some respects to the sort of threat that people have in mind when they talk about Kobolds with their traps and narrow passages, and to the sort of threat that (at least a certain style of) 1st ed AD&D play aims at. The difference I have in mind from these other examples, however, is that in 1st ed AD&D the players have to meet the threat through ingenuity that has nothing to do with game mechanics (because their really aren't any) - I'm thinking here of White Plume Mountain, perhaps Tomb of Horrors, and the like. In 4e, on the other hand, the players will be succeeding by mastering the mechanics.

A recent playtest report on the Wizards site talked about the complexity of 4e for players, and how they are looking at ways to deal with that. This is far from conclusive evidence that the designers are thinking about this in the same way that I am - but it is consistent with it.

Does this make any sense?


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am doing my best to avoid Endless Wheel Spinning Syndrome.  It seems clear that this can be done by taking the following steps, in order:
> 
> (1)  Identify cause(s) of the problem.
> (2)  Determine whether or not proposed solution(s) address the cause(s) of the problem.
> (3)  Where proposed solution(s) addresses the cause(s) of the problem, determine if they do so sufficiently to resolve the problem to a reasonable degree.
> 
> When I did my analysis, this is the order that I followed.  I have received many responses that attempt to suggest that my version of (2) or (3) are flawed, based upon a different (1) that remains undeclared.



I have given my analysis of the problem, including its causes, plus various solutions based on various mixes of resource-types, in post #1118. So far you haven't responded.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Until and unless we can agree upon an identified cause of the problem (15-minute adventuring day), there is no point in attempting to analyze any solution.



This is too pessimistic, because agreement on the cause of the problem is unlikely. For example, you appear to think that it is a result of rational play in the absence of constraints on resting like wandering monsters, whereas I agree with Patryn of Elvenshae (and I think with the 4e designers) that it is primarily a result of players of wizards wanting to do things, and having nothing to do but have their PCs go nova. In the absence of a detailed survey of player preferences and corresponding playstyles (which I assume WoTC has, and is taking account of in its design of 4e), it will be hard to reach agreement on this matter.

What I think can be done is to determine what set of solutions is likely to work for a given set of posited causes of the problem. That is what I have tried to do.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> I think Pmertons is probably being optimistic as I really think the scenario 9/10 times is going to be unleash your big per-encounter guns first (or basically it will be the same set of tactics in most every encounter). On the other hand reading many of Pmertons posts he (she) does have a nice grasp of game mechanics from several systems so he might have some insight i don't.



Thanks. And you may be right that I'm being optimistic. In a reply to Gizmo33 (and also here, though with a slightly different foucs), and in some much earlier posts in reply to RC (#572 and #828), I agreed that if non-mechanical thresholds of signifance are not present in play, then the introduction of per-encounter resources may not solve the problem of the 15 minute day, because players will have no reason to conserve per-day resources, no reason not to rest if those resources are used, and may not have the context that helps make the playing out of mechanically challenging, but non-win/lose encounters, a worthwhile game pursuit.

I say "may", because a certain proportion of game players get pleasure simply from playing the game well, even if there is nothing else (theme, plot, PC survival, resource conservation) at stake in the encounter. But I don't know what proportion of D&D players this is true of.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> I think his idea of action tokens though is probably a good way to balance and bring more diversity to tactics, as actions have become the most valuable commodity in combat.



That was actually Jackelope King's example, and the game is Iron Heroes, designed by Mike Mearls, who is now one of those working on 4e.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> Because the choices would be non-trivial, the encounter would (in round 1, before effective choices have been made by the players) be one in which a significant threat is posed to the PCs. But unlike the Stone Giant encounter, the threat would be not simply one of raw probability.




If I stand a chance of making a wrong tactical decision, and a wrong tactical decision stands a chance of getting me killed, then IMO it is logical and obvious that the situation stands a chance of getting me killed.  I just think it's logically impossible to have a situation where you are making important, challenging decisions and yet never facing a noticable chance of failure.  "Raw probability" in this case is not fundementally different in the situation where you are rolling dice, and the situation where you are making a choice where you don't know all of the facts or mistakes in reasoning are possible.  Any non-trivial choice is going to carry with it a noticable chance of failure - even if there are no dice involved.


----------



## IanArgent

Hey - I've been explicitly for the change in resource management because it will both allow primary spellcasters to cast spells in every round of combat, and require that primary martial characters have to ration their most powerful abilities.

Anyone want to claim that is not a good thing?


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> If I stand a chance of making a wrong tactical decision, and a wrong tactical decision stands a chance of getting me killed, then IMO it is logical and obvious that the situation stands a chance of getting me killed.  I just think it's logically impossible to have a situation where you are making important, challenging decisions and yet never facing a noticable chance of failure.  "Raw probability" in this case is not fundementally different in the situation where you are rolling dice, and the situation where you are making a choice where you don't know all of the facts or mistakes in reasoning are possible.  Any non-trivial choice is going to carry with it a noticable chance of failure - even if there are no dice involved.



Fair enough. But in this sense of "threat of being killed", per-encounter seems to be no different from operational play - because in operational play I might make a mistake in encounter N (because the resource-rationing decisions are non-trivial), and then find myself in trouble as a result in encounter N+1. Both the 1st ed DMG and the 1st ed PHB emphasise that _every_ encounter is a threat in this sense, and therefore has to be played with care.

It's just that (as Jackelope King has been emphasising) once per-encounter resources are introduced the timeframe in which one discovers if one made a mistake is the encounter itself, rather than the encounter sequence.

Or have I missed something?


----------



## pemerton

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Hey - I've been explicitly for the change in resource management because it will both allow primary spellcasters to cast spells in every round of combat, and require that primary martial characters have to ration their most powerful abilities.
> 
> Anyone want to claim that is not a good thing?



No. 

I should add that I've agreed with most (maybe all?) of what you've said in your posts on this and a number of other 4e threads. Especially those which talk about the logic of adventure design, which I think have been spot on.


----------



## 3catcircus

I've been quietly watching this thread, but no one really seems to be articulating two salient points, especially in light of Patryn's concern that the wizard should be able to cast an essentially infinite number of spells each day.

1.  D&D, from its inception, was based upon military wargames.  Just like in a real war, your PC goes into the fight not with the resources he wants, but with the resources he has.  More importantly, wars are just as much about managing your logistics as it is about killing the enemy. Don't have any more Fireballs memorized?  Use something else or get out of the way of the fighter. Don't have *any* spells memorized? *Stay* out of the way of the fighter. The fighter is down to 10 hp?  Retreat. The fighter drops?  Run!

2.  Just because the fighter can attack every round or the rogue can attempt to hide in shadows every round doesn't mean that the wizard or cleric should be able to cast spells every round of every combat.  What does the wizard do that no one else does? He handles all of those utility tasks *outside* of combat - identifying magic items and crafting new ones.  The cleric?  He can turn undead without casting a spell, and he can do it several times each day - if successful, it is more effective at quickly ending a combat than a fighter or wizard.

My point - you don't need to have the classes be equal to be effective.


----------



## IanArgent

3catcircus said:
			
		

> I've been quietly watching this thread, but no one really seems to be articulating two salient points, especially in light of Patryn's concern that the wizard should be able to cast an essentially infinite number of spells each day.
> 
> 1.  D&D, from its inception, was based upon military wargames.  Just like in a real war, your PC goes into the fight not with the resources he wants, but with the resources he has.  More importantly, wars are just as much about managing your logistics as it is about killing the enemy. Don't have any more Fireballs memorized?  Use something else or get out of the way of the fighter. Don't have *any* spells memorized? *Stay* out of the way of the fighter. The fighter is down to 10 hp?  Retreat. The fighter drops?  Run!
> 
> 2.  Just because the fighter can attack every round or the rogue can attempt to hide in shadows every round doesn't mean that the wizard or cleric should be able to cast spells every round of every combat.  What does the wizard do that no one else does? He handles all of those utility tasks *outside* of combat - identifying magic items and crafting new ones.  The cleric?  He can turn undead without casting a spell, and he can do it several times each day - if successful, it is more effective at quickly ending a combat than a fighter or wizard.
> 
> My point - you don't need to have the classes be equal to be effective.





And this is a sacred cow I'll be very happy to grind into holy hamburger. It's a stupid concept anyway - we're not playing a military wargame (and the military wargames I _have_ played do a much better job of separating logistics from organic capabilities anyway).


----------



## 3catcircus

IanArgent said:
			
		

> And this is a sacred cow I'll be very happy to grind into holy hamburger. It's a stupid concept anyway - we're not playing a military wargame (and the military wargames I _have_ played do a much better job of separating logistics from organic capabilities anyway).




How is the fact that D&D was developed from concepts originally encountered in military wargames in *any way* a sacred cow?  That is like saying that the sky is blue is a sacred cow...

As to logistics vs. organic capability modelling, that is simply a matter of granularity, especially since the rules of most military wargames are much smaller in volume.


----------



## IanArgent

The sacred cow of some "units" (characters) have different "logistics" (resource management) than others.



			
				3catcircus said:
			
		

> 2. Just because the fighter can attack every round or the rogue can attempt to hide in shadows every round doesn't mean that the wizard or cleric should be able to cast spells every round of every combat. What does the wizard do that no one else does? He handles all of those utility tasks *outside* of combat - identifying magic items and crafting new ones. The cleric? He can turn undead without casting a spell, and he can do it several times each day - if successful, it is more effective at quickly ending a combat than a fighter or wizard.




Whoah. Item crafting is a 3.x innovation (effectively); and is by far a small part of the wizard's role. The wizard's role is (and always has been) artillery/offensive support. The cleric's role has been (and they want to change that) the hit Point battery. Turning undead is a stunt, and a terribly complicated one at that.

The 4ed mentaility is that a character should fulfill his role in every encounter, and every round within that encounter. That doesn't necessarily mean the wizard should have a _fireball_ for every round, but that he should be able to do something that the fighter cannot do (the stereotypical example, shoot  crossbow) with his action.

This is a major change from previous editions, and I for one welcome it.

Simple question - do you believe that a character should be able to do something appropriate to his class and role all the time, or not. And if so, why not?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, is it fair to say that you posit that the 15 minute adventuring day problem happens because you use your best (wizardly) resources very quickly, and then need to rest to recover them, coupled with the perception that your remaining resources don't feel "wizardy" to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is correct that I believe that this is a relatively good summation of one of the [primary] causes of the 15 minute adventuring day.
> 
> I would not go so far to say, however, that it is the only cause (as there are at least two others in my head).
> 
> But let's limit the discussion to this for awhile.
Click to expand...



Obviously, if you have other theories, we'll have to look at them.  

However, from what we have:

the 15 minute adventuring day problem happens because you use your best (wizardly) resources very quickly, and then need to rest to recover them​
Why do you use your best resources first?  Presumably because you want to do something "wizardy" every round, and 

your remaining resources don't feel "wizardy" to you.​
This seems, btw, and imho, to be the reasoning behind the changes suggested to relieve this problem in Wyatt's blog.  It might be summed up, 

If the wizard (or insert Class X) has enough wizardy things to do every round, he will not use up his best wizardy resources as quickly, and consequently will not cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem.​
Are we on the same page so far?


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Item crafting is a 3.x innovation (effectively); and is by far a small part of the wizard's role.




Strange, as there are rules for item crafting in Expert D&D, 1st Edition AD&D, and 2nd Edition AD&D.  The Wizard splatbook in 2nd Edition spends a fair amount of time on the topic, whereas Expert is almost like 3.X, excepting that you don't need a feat (you spend money + time).

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> So far you haven't responded.





"No means no."


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Okay. For "ease of use" I put all posts together. I adjusted some numbers and added a few abilities to make it (seemingly at the first glance at least) consistent.





A couple of questions.

(1)  Are we assuming that any per-encounter ability can be used with a minute reset, ala the SAGA system?  For example, can I Arcane Mark a corridor while not in combat?

(2)  Why did you include monsters in your set-up?

(3)  Why did you not include some of the things that we know have been mentioned, such as the ability to attack and heal at the same time, or the idea that a wizard's per-day abilities comprise 20% of his resources and are the "big guns"?

When you answer these, I'll be ready to go on.

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A couple of questions.
> 
> (1)  Are we assuming that any per-encounter ability can be used with a minute reset, ala the SAGA system?  For example, can I Arcane Mark a corridor while not in combat?
> 
> (2)  Why did you include monsters in your set-up?
> 
> (3)  Why did you not include some of the things that we know have been mentioned, such as the ability to attack and heal at the same time, or the idea that a wizard's per-day abilities comprise 20% of his resources and are the "big guns"?
> 
> When you answer these, I'll be ready to go on.
> 
> RC




(1) Yes. (Effectively, once per minute, if you like spamming around Arcane Marks  )
(2) If I have to put in hit points of PCs, I should include monster details, too, otherwise the hit points are meaningless, too. If you're refering to the amount of monsters we might have in any given encounter: I use them to give a feeling for the total encounter setup and give ideas against what the resources are to be employed, given the details we were given about monster design and intented encounter design. But it's not like you _have_ to use the setup if you don't like it. 

(3) Because I was more focussing on a Wizard. But the "Vampiric Touch"-like melee attack abilities should be simlar to that one. And I think the per/day resources pretty much fit a 20% model. 

If you don't like these numbers, adjust the numbers (and explain why, preferrably  )


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> "Vampiric Touch"-like melee attack abilities should be simlar to that one.




I was referring to the mention that some characters could attack and heal their allies as a single action.



> And I think the per/day resources pretty much fit a 20% model.




Alrighty then.

Jackalope King, if this looks good to you, let's get to the encounters.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> Fair enough. But in this sense of "threat of being killed", per-encounter seems to be no different from operational play - because in operational play I might make a mistake in encounter N (because the resource-rationing decisions are non-trivial), and then find myself in trouble as a result in encounter N+1. Both the 1st ed DMG and the 1st ed PHB emphasise that _every_ encounter is a threat in this sense, and therefore has to be played with care.




Yea, exactly.  *If* encounter N+1 is at a certain difficulty level then the N+1 encounter is not much different than the per-encounter situation.  But that's one of my points, because there is no reason the N+1 encounter has to be like anything, whereas in order to make encounters interesting in a per-encounter resource situation that very encounter must be the one posing the risk of death.

In a per-day design, the looming N+1, N+2, etc. encounter that adds the tension and sense of vulnerability.  In a per-encounter design it must be that very encounter (N) that the PCs are facing at that moment that poses the risk of death, because encounter N is nearly irrelevant to encounter N+1 unless there are plot elements that make it otherwise (and my assessment is that generally those plot elements are too delicate and contrived to be a reliable design plan for every adventure)

Also, in the per-day design, the options you have for mitigating the difficulty level of the N+1 are much greater than those you could have for a per-encounter design.  Multiple weak cures, for instance, can actually help in the per-day design but are just too expensive to use in a per-encounter situation where every round counts.

Working operational details into an adventure design is something IME that takes some practice and a little work.  Because of this my early DMing didn't do this as much.  As a result my encounters were increased in difficulty because I wanted to add that sense of tension but I essentially had only one way of doing it.  So some big powerful monster bursts through the door and the PCs face the fight of their lives.  Exciting, except that you can only do this a few times before the razor's edge that you are balancing the probabilities on becomes noticable, and you either have to start cheating or become a killer DM.

I currently do have a per-encounter resource situation in my games - overland travel is an example of this.  There's pretty much only one encounter for each couple of days.  My options exist, as they would in a per-encounter design, but they're just more limited. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> It's just that (as Jackelope King has been emphasising) once per-encounter resources are introduced the timeframe in which one discovers if one made a mistake is the encounter itself, rather than the encounter sequence.




Yes, but as I keep saying you really aren't going to care about your mistakes unless that very encounter is the one that stands a chance of killing you.  Otherwise, who cares what spells/tactics you use when facing monsters that can't deal enough damage to threaten you?  

So the timeframe for discovering mistakes is the encounter itself - I'm not sure if that's meant to be a good thing, but also, importantly, there's a much higher tolerance for mistakes in the per-encounter design, because while in the operational game a mistake costing me 10 hitpoints is significant, in the per-encounter design it's meaningless.


----------



## shilsen

Looks like I'm very late to the party, but for me, the per-encounter model (probably with some per-day abilities) is by far preferable and superior to a primarily per-day model. I don't run dungeon crawls and in my campaign PCs normally only have 1 encounter in a given game day, with sometimes 2 and very rarely 3 (twice or thrice in 60 sessions). Obviously this doesn't fit the supposed 3e/3.5e paradigm of multiple encounters daily, but it's never been much trouble for me to challenge my PCs nevertheless (even though they very rarely fight an enemy or enemies who combine to be equal in power to them), with an average of a PC going to -10 every second fight. Even so, it's clear to me that challenging them via multiple encounters is much easier than doing it via one. Having a model for PC abilities (i.e. the per encounter model) which works equally well whether there are multiple encounters a day or not just suits me significantly more as a DM (and also as a player). And I'm even more certain of it now that I've DMed for (and run as a PC) characters with the Bo9S system.


----------



## shilsen

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yes, but as I keep saying you really aren't going to care about your mistakes unless that very encounter is the one that stands a chance of killing you.




Wrong. See below.



> Otherwise, who cares what spells/tactics you use when facing monsters that can't deal enough damage to threaten you?




An enemy doesn't have to threaten you with death (as the first sentence of yours I quoted above claims) for mistakes to matter. A mistake may mean the enemy survives long enough to escape. A mistake may mean the enemy delays you longer than you can afford (for whatever reason, whether you need to reach some place/thing/person in time, get away from some place/thing/person, etc). A mistake may mean that the enemy uses a magical item that you wanted for yourself. A mistake may mean that the enemy has time to cry an alarm and other enemies are alerted. A mistake may mean that the duration of a spell you're relying on for some reason expires. There are a myriad ways for a creative DM to make a mistake a problem, without death being on the line. If death is the only possible repercussion for mistakes in your DM's game, chances are he needs to think a little more about encounters.



> So the timeframe for discovering mistakes is the encounter itself - I'm not sure if that's meant to be a good thing,




I'm pretty sure that it's a good thing. A model which focuses on every individual encounter rather than one which focuses on potential encounters in the future is significantly better for me, as both DM and player.



> but also, importantly, there's a much higher tolerance for mistakes in the per-encounter design, because while in the operational game a mistake costing me 10 hitpoints is significant, in the per-encounter design it's meaningless.




As noted above, mistakes costing you a few hit points only have to be meaningless in the per-encounter design if the DM isn't exercising his creativity.


----------



## gizmo33

shilsen said:
			
		

> An enemy doesn't have to threaten you with death (as the first sentence of yours I quoted above claims) for mistakes to matter.




I've already been over this several times in this thread.  I realize you are late to the party so I'll try an abbreviated version of my earlier arguments.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> A mistake may mean the enemy survives long enough to escape. A mistake may mean the enemy delays you longer than you can afford (for whatever reason, whether you need to reach some place/thing/person in time, get away from some place/thing/person, etc). A mistake may mean that the enemy uses a magical item that you wanted for yourself. A mistake may mean that the enemy has time to cry an alarm and other enemies are alerted. A mistake may mean that the duration of a spell you're relying on for some reason expires. There are a myriad ways for a creative DM to make a mistake a problem, without death being on the line.




Some of these options already exist in the per-day scenario.  Some of these options are too overly contrived to rely on.  "Using a magic item you wanted for yourself" - must not be a per encounter resource, because then who cares if the enemy uses it?  Alerting other enemies?  Who cares about that unless those other enemies can kill you in which case you're back to the original situation of kill-or-be-killed.  A spell that you are relying on is the one that was keeping you alive - again this is another case of a potentially deadly encounter.  So death is on the line in two of these examples, although you stopped short of following the logic in that case to it's conclusion.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> If death is the only possible repercussion for mistakes in your DM's game, chances are he needs to think a little more about encounters.




Ironic, considering that death was the possible repercussion in several of your above examples, so we all could stand to think about this, it seems.  Furthermore there's a tiny window of time where any of the encounter choices has any significance.  Go ahead and raise an alarm for example - if the help takes more than a minute to arrive the PCs are just going to have all of their powers back anyway and whatever they face is no difference than had they faced it on their own schedule.  

Finally, it's a matter of DMing style but I'm not so manipulative or heavy handed that I can guarrantee that some of these more "delicate" situations will survive contact with the PCs.  The "ticking timebomb" scenario is an example of that - while it makes for an interesting hypothetical on a messageboard, a realistic situation in a world of over-land travel that's going to have an impact on a game of 6-second melee rounds and 1-minute recovery times is hard to imagine no matter how much you think I should think about it.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> As noted above, mistakes costing you a few hit points only have to be meaningless in the per-encounter design if the DM isn't exercising his creativity.




No one is going to raise an alarm if I take 10 more points of damage in a given encounter and fail to otherwise.  So I don't see how your examples support your statement here.  In fact, it's hard for me to see how many of these examples are the result of actual playing rather than a sort of quick arm-chair analysis.  Are these examples really taken from your actual games?


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Alrighty then.
> 
> Jackalope King, if this looks good to you, let's get to the encounters.



By all means.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Finally, it's a matter of DMing style but I'm not so manipulative or heavy handed that I can guarrantee that some of these more "delicate" situations will survive contact with the PCs.  The "ticking timebomb" scenario is an example of that - while it makes for an interesting hypothetical on a messageboard, a realistic situation in a world of over-land travel that's going to have an impact on a game of 6-second melee rounds and 1-minute recovery times is hard to imagine no matter how much you think I should think about it.



It's not "manipulative or heavy-handed" to attach context to an encounter any more than it's "repetitive and boring to go slogging through another dungeon and repeat the walking through the door litany for the millionth time".


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> It's not "manipulative or heavy-handed" to attach context to an encounter and more than it's "repetitive and boring to go slogging through another dungeon and repeat the walking through the door litany for the millionth time".




I'm confused by the grammar of this statement.  Furthermore, "attaching context to an encounter" may very well be manipulative and heavy-handed - I can't really see where you are refuting this other than in your tone.

For example, I design an adventure so that *whenever* the PCs walk through the door to the final encounter area, the BBEG has some villager strapped to an altar and is 10 seconds away from sacrificing him.  PCs must battle their way through the mooks and save the villager.  

This sort of thing is extremely heavy-handed IMO, but that's a matter of gaming style I guess.  I'm more of a simulationist, perhaps, than the average DM.  I would be uncomfortable with the natural reaction that my players would have to this scenario, which would be "hey, what are the chances that we would stumble upon the BBEG *just* as he's about to sacrifice the villager?  We spent *days* slogging through the wilderness just to get here, and we've back-tracked twice in the dungeon.  All of this wasted time and yet the moment is just right for the maximum amount of dramatic tension?"


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> It's not "manipulative or heavy-handed" to attach context to an encounter any more than it's "repetitive and boring to go slogging through another dungeon and repeat the walking through the door litany for the millionth time".




Now that the grammar is cleared up this statement makes just as little sense to me.  The two parts of the sentence seem unrelated.  It *is* repetative and boring to slog through another dungeon (as the word choice "slog" would even lead one to conclude) so a logical reading of the sentence would indicate that you're demonstrating that attaching context is manipulative and heavy-handed.  Which I'm pretty sure was not your intention.  If you're going to ridicule dungeon-crawls it's probably best to do that in it's own context.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> By all means.




OK then.  We can assume that the prudent player will be saving his Arcane Mark power for between encounters.  I.e., while there may be a sufficient reason to both AM & teleport to that area _during_ an encounter, this will be a rare bird indeed.

We are given three appropriate monster groupings:

Minion (used in group size three to four times the party size): 10-20 hp, Average Damage 5 per round

Average Monster (used in group size equal to party size): 60-100 hp, Average Damage 10 per round

"Boss" Monster (used alone, possible augmented by a few minions): 400+ hp, Average Damage 20 per round​
To examine our encounters fairly, we must first see, IMHO, how the PCs stack up against these monster groupings.  Let us start with minions.  We must look at minions both 3 X and 4 X party size, so we need to select a party size.  Let us say that we have a party of 4.

That means that each party member must deal 10-20 hp of damage to 3-4 squares.  Looking at my schedule of abilities, I see that I can use Attack 1/Encounter 1 to deal 15 points of damage in 4 squares, leaving me with a chance of having to face another round of attacks, or Attack 1/Day 1, which ensures that I will kill all of my targets this round.

If I use my per-encounter power, I take 5 hp damage, and have a reasonable chance of taking another 5 hp damage, for a total of 10 hp damage.  If I use my per-day, I take 5 hp damage.

Because each ability tree silos, if I use even one at-will attack, I can't use any other attack.

_*Assuming no other factors*_, I should use my per-day encounter every time.

If we can agree thus far, we can examine what factors might change this approach in a Minion encounter.


RC


----------



## Jedi_Solo

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I would be uncomfortable with the natural reaction that my players would have to this scenario, which would be "hey, what are the chances that we would stumble upon the BBEG *just* as he's about to sacrifice the villager?  We spent *days* slogging through the wilderness just to get here, and we've back-tracked twice in the dungeon.  All of this wasted time and yet the moment is just right for the maximum amount of dramatic tension?"




Contrived?  Maybe.  But what's stopping the DM from saying the group has X amount of time from the moment they first enter the dungeon (say... 5 or 10 minutes.  That'll cut down on the 1 Minute recovery uses) or from the time they first hear of the adventure ("Yeah, the temple is only ten minutes away but we're 1st level commoners and the entrance is guarded by a phalanx of Necromancers").  No chance to backtrack to town with this setup.

Overly convenmient timing for story purposes?  Absolutely.  And most DMs may not want to use it every single session, but if the heroes don't get there when the time pressure is on; what is the point of the adventure?


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'm confused by the grammar of this statement.  Furthermore, "attaching context to an encounter" may very well be manipulative and heavy-handed - I can't really see where you are refuting this other than in your tone.
> 
> For example, I design an adventure so that *whenever* the PCs walk through the door to the final encounter area, the BBEG has some villager strapped to an altar and is 10 seconds away from sacrificing him.  PCs must battle their way through the mooks and save the villager.
> 
> This sort of thing is extremely heavy-handed IMO, but that's a matter of gaming style I guess.  I'm more of a simulationist, perhaps, than the average DM.  I would be uncomfortable with the natural reaction that my players would have to this scenario, which would be "hey, what are the chances that we would stumble upon the BBEG *just* as he's about to sacrifice the villager?  We spent *days* slogging through the wilderness just to get here, and we've back-tracked twice in the dungeon.  All of this wasted time and yet the moment is just right for the maximum amount of dramatic tension?"



Pardon the typo (and => any).

Your example is a strawman. I've never run an encounter where the BBEG is always 10 seconds away from sacrificing the villager, and the PCs just so happen to stumble in at just the right moment. Not once. I think it's absolutely essential, though, that there's a logical progression of events. A villager got kidnapped by the big bad evil guy. Why? What was the villager for? What's his plan? What's he going to do when the PCs try to come to the rescue.

Then I sit down and think. Once I know what the big bad evil guy wants the villager for ("he is the last descendent of the fallen kings of old, and only by his blood can I take the throne!"), I know how the BBEG will challenge the PCs. His goal is to drain the villager's blood with magic and take it for his own so he can claim the throne.

So the PCs go and storm his stronghold. If they go in loud, then the guards/guard monsters will be alerted and the BBEG might decide (if he's a megalomaniac) that he wants to flaunt his brilliance by performing the sacrifice right under the nose of the PCs (but honestly, that's pretty silly, and one I'd only use with the biggest egos).

More likely, the villain's ritual has a given timeframe that it must be performed in. So maybe the PCs have until the appex of the full moon to rescue the villager (which, if the PCs learn about the BBEG's devotion to that style of magic, they'll know is tonight!). If the PCs drag their feet then the BBEG will be successful. If they're smart and quick, they could get there with plenty of time to stop the ritual. I'd probably resolve how quick they are with a knowledge: arcana check after each encounter by the villain, with a bonus based on how long the PCs took to reach and overcome the encounter. Once he has X number of successes, the ritual is complete.

Or, it's quite possible that the ritual is something very simple. "Grab the villager, say the magic words, and slit his throat." If the PCs move quickly, they might catch the BBEG before he's even _started_ the ritual, because he was maneuvering with some allies of his to make sure that he'd have legitimate noble families behind him when he claims the throne in a fortnight. But if the PCs are loud, then he'll perform the ritual and escape before they ever reach him.

Then the PCs, even though all they did was cut through a few squads of guards, will have some real consequences to deal with.

...

Long story short, there's meaning to these encounters once you apply them in context. Sure, the fight against a squad of weaker guards might be a blowout for the PCs, easily winning in just a few rounds, but the PCs care because every second the guards hold them is a second closer to the BBEG completing his plan (even if the PCs have no idea on the actual time frame they're dealing with). It's not "manipulative or heavy-handed" for the BBEG to put a plot in motion, or to react intelligently to the heroes' actions.

And further, this is one clear example where per-day resources really make it difficult to run such an adventure. The PCs have a limited time-frame in which to come to the rescue, and if they have to rest and recover, then they'll be defeated. And it certainly isn't the only such example.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Now that the grammar is cleared up this statement makes just as little sense to me.  The two parts of the sentence seem unrelated.  It *is* repetative and boring to slog through another dungeon (as the word choice "slog" would even lead one to conclude) so a logical reading of the sentence would indicate that you're demonstrating that attaching context is manipulative and heavy-handed.  Which I'm pretty sure was not your intention.  If you're going to ridicule dungeon-crawls it's probably best to do that in it's own context.



I wasn't attempting to ridicule anything. I was attempting to show that it's just as illogical to claim that people on either side are promoting "manipulative or heavy-handed" games as it is to claim they're promoting "repetitive dugeon crawls".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Your example is a strawman. I've never run an encounter where the BBEG is always 10 seconds away from sacrificing the villager, and the PCs just so happen to stumble in at just the right moment. Not once.




_Crown of the Kobold King_.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OK then.  We can assume that the prudent player will be saving his Arcane Mark power for between encounters.  I.e., while there may be a sufficient reason to both AM & teleport to that area _during_ an encounter, this will be a rare bird indeed.
> 
> We are given three appropriate monster groupings:
> 
> Minion (used in group size three to four times the party size): 10-20 hp, Average Damage 5 per round
> 
> Average Monster (used in group size equal to party size): 60-100 hp, Average Damage 10 per round
> 
> "Boss" Monster (used alone, possible augmented by a few minions): 400+ hp, Average Damage 20 per round​
> To examine our encounters fairly, we must first see, IMHO, how the PCs stack up against these monster groupings.  Let us start with minions.  We must look at minions both 3 X and 4 X party size, so we need to select a party size.  Let us say that we have a party of 4.
> 
> That means that each party member must deal 10-20 hp of damage to 3-4 squares.  Looking at my schedule of abilities, I see that I can use Attack 1/Encounter 1 to deal 15 points of damage in 4 squares, leaving me with a chance of having to face another round of attacks, or Attack 1/Day 1, which ensures that I will kill all of my targets this round.
> 
> If I use my per-encounter power, I take 5 hp damage, and have a reasonable chance of taking another 5 hp damage, for a total of 10 hp damage.  If I use my per-day, I take 5 hp damage.
> 
> Because each ability tree silos, if I use even one at-will attack, I can't use any other attack.
> 
> _*Assuming no other factors*_, I should use my per-day encounter every time.
> 
> If we can agree thus far, we can examine what factors might change this approach in a Minion encounter.
> 
> 
> RC



I'm not following how it's assumed that the minions are all clustered in the 4-square radius that the per-day attack requires.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> _Crown of the Kobold King_.
> 
> RC



I'm not familiar with that adventure.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'm not following how it's assumed that the minions are all clustered in the 4-square radius that the per-day attack requires.




If the minions are not clustered, as the PC abilities are written out, you need to instead use Utility 1/Day 2, as you have no way of winning this encounter.


----------



## shilsen

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Some of these options already exist in the per-day scenario.  Some of these options are too overly contrived to rely on.  "Using a magic item you wanted for yourself" - must not be a per encounter resource, because then who cares if the enemy uses it?




That's the cool thing about the per-encounter resource, from what I've seen of it in play in 3.5e (via Bo9S and similar abilities). They exist along with per-day and one-use resources. So if the enemy has a one-use magic item you'd like to get and you fail to stop him using it, that's a consequence which is relevant, and it's still relevant in a system where PCs have per-encounter abilities.



> Alerting other enemies?  Who cares about that unless those other enemies can kill you in which case you're back to the original situation of kill-or-be-killed.




I see you skipped the bit I mentioned about the enemy surviving long enough to escape. An enemy escaping doesn't kill you, but in a lot of cases that can be a significantly negative consequence. 



> A spell that you are relying on is the one that was keeping you alive - again this is another case of a potentially deadly encounter.  So death is on the line in two of these examples, although you stopped short of following the logic in that case to it's conclusion.




A spell you're relying on may be doing all sorts of things besides keeping you alive. It might be a Fly spell, without which you won't be able to reach location X. It might be an Arcane Sight, without which you won't be able to detect the magical portal the BBEG escaped through. And so on. As I mentioned before, death is only on the line if you're not thinking through the various possibilities, as you clearly aren't.



> Ironic, considering that death was the possible repercussion in several of your above examples, so we all could stand to think about this, it seems.




Wrong. See above.




> Furthermore there's a tiny window of time where any of the encounter choices has any significance.  Go ahead and raise an alarm for example - if the help takes more than a minute to arrive the PCs are just going to have all of their powers back anyway and whatever they face is no difference than had they faced it on their own schedule.




Wrong again. It all depends on what the alarm would achieve. Would the alarm let the BBEG escape before you get to him? Then the significance can be long-term and campaign-changing. Does the alarm mean the city watch (who otherwise wouldn't do so) shows up to cart the PCs off to jail for breaking and entering? No death, but that's sure to be significant.



> Finally, it's a matter of DMing style but I'm not so manipulative or heavy handed that I can guarrantee that some of these more "delicate" situations will survive contact with the PCs.  The "ticking timebomb" scenario is an example of that - while it makes for an interesting hypothetical on a messageboard, a realistic situation in a world of over-land travel that's going to have an impact on a game of 6-second melee rounds and 1-minute recovery times is hard to imagine no matter how much you think I should think about it.




As noted above, a DM's failure to imagine beyond a limited area doesn't mean the system is to blame.



> No one is going to raise an alarm if I take 10 more points of damage in a given encounter and fail to otherwise.  So I don't see how your examples support your statement here.  In fact, it's hard for me to see how many of these examples are the result of actual playing rather than a sort of quick arm-chair analysis.  Are these examples really taken from your actual games?




Some of them, yes. My game actually literally has no death in it, since I allow PCs to use action pts and swashbuckling cards to survive attacks and effects that kill or take them to -10. And, as noted above, I only usually have 1 encounter a day. Both of which combined should mean (according to the arguments I've seen from RC and yourself) that combat is meaningless in my game. On the contrary, combat usually has a whole lot riding on it, simply because there are all kinds of repercussions to failure and a context within which they occur. 

As noted by Jackelope King above, attaching context to a combat is hardly heavy-handed or manipulative. By definition, the attrition model is also attaching context to a combat by making it relevant in the context of the future combats that the PCs are supposed to have. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with that adventure.




The first of the Paizo Dungeon Mastery line.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If the minions are not clustered, as the PC abilities are written out, you need to instead use Utility 1/Day 2, as you have no way of winning this encounter.



I'm definitely lost now. How do you have no way of winning if you cannot win in a single round? It appears to me that it would only take 1 round if the party used At Will Attack 1 to target the scattered minions.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The first of the Paizo Dungeon Mastery line.



I'm not sure how it's relevant to what I said, though.


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> Both of which combined should mean (according to the arguments I've seen from RC and yourself) that combat is meaningless in my game. On the contrary, combat usually has a whole lot riding on it, simply because there are all kinds of repercussions to failure and a context within which they occur.




Either I haven't explained my position well enough, or you haven't read it closely.  I argue that combat is only meaningful when there is context and consequence.

The 15-minute adventuring day is obviously not a problem for you, because you only have one combat per day, and like it that way.  You use a mix of per-encounter and per-day abilities, and it hasn't changed this for you.  Wyatt's blog would seem to indicate that using this mix will make you have more encounters per day.  It is this claim which I dispute.

I will also agree with you that resource attrition is manipulative.  IMHO, every game has rules that attempt to manipulate its players into approaching the game a certain way.  This is not only an important part of what causes the difference in "feel" between different editions, but it is inescapable.  So long as actions have differing contexts and consequences, players will examine risks & rewards differently, and act accordingly.  Studies have shown this to be true even where the consequences are completely random -- even where no system exists, players still attempt to determine what is happening inside the "system" and use it to their advantage.  

The rules of soccer manipulate players into kicking the ball rather than picking it up.  The rules of chess manipulate players into conserving pieces unless they can trade them for advantage.  The rules of Twister provide for a more complex form of manipulation, because "win" conditions might mean more than winning the game (i.e., one might prefer to get entwined with that cute person over there and lose than to not get entwined and win), but there is still manipulation going on.

Solving a problem within a game often means (1) determining why the problem exists (i.e., what factors manipulate the players to act in the problematic manner) and then (2) changing those factors and/or adding new factors to alter what the players are being manipulated to do.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'm definitely lost now. How do you have no way of winning if you cannot win in a single round? It appears to me that it would only take 1 round if the party used At Will Attack 1 to target the scattered minions.




Attack, Defense, and Utility designate "silos".  In each encounter, you may use only one ability per silo (and only use it once).

If your Attack doesn't do enough damage to kill your foe, you have no further attack.



> I'm not sure how it's relevant to what I said, though.




You said that Gizmo33's example (where the BBEG is always 10 seconds away from sacrificing the villager) was a strawman; I demonstrated that it was not.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Attack, Defense, and Utility designate "silos".  In each encounter, you may use only one ability per silo (and only use it once).
> 
> If your Attack doesn't do enough damage to kill your foe, you have no further attack.



That doesn't seem accurate, based on what we know about silos. If an ability is "at will", you're limited to only using it once per encounter? And further, ability 1 clearly states it deals 20 points of damage to a minion with only 10 hit points.



> You said that Gizmo33's example (where the BBEG is always 10 seconds away from sacrificing the villager) was a strawman; I demonstrated that it was not.



I'm not claiming that it's never been done. I'm claiming that it's innaccurate to suggest that all context-based encounters are like this and then suggest that this is why context is "manipulative or heavy-handed".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> That doesn't seem accurate, based on what we know about silos. If an ability is "at will", you're limited to only using it once per encounter? And further, ability 1 clearly states it deals 20 points of damage to a minion with only 10 hit points.




I concede that the description of abilities will probably need some revision; but as I did not write them, I have to work with what I have.  Ability 1 clearly states it deals 20 points of damage to a minion with only 10 hit points, but you are only allowed to use it once.

Perhaps a revision is in order, and then we can re-examine this problem?



> I'm not claiming that it's never been done. I'm claiming that it's innaccurate to suggest that all context-based encounters are like this and then suggest that this is why context is "manipulative or heavy-handed".




What Gizmo33 was trying to say, as I understand it, is that if everything resets after 1 minute, it seems likely that whatever context the counter has must occur within that 1 minute timeframe.  If so, then his players would not accept that they always arrive within that crucial timefrime to stop a "ticking clock".

(Gizmo33, please correct me if I have misunderstood you.)


RC


----------



## Mallus

shilsen said:
			
		

> Looks like I'm very late to the party...



It's not just a party, it's a party with a _clown_. And the clown is John Wayne Gacy.



> And I'm even more certain of it now that I've DMed for (and run as a PC) characters with the Bo9S system.



Not to mention an 'attrition and death'-free system like M&M.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Your example is a strawman.




I think that "strawman" gets misused on this board all of the time to mean something that the reader doesn't agree with and this is not it's definition.

My argument was not intended to be a proxy argument.  Proving my example as valid does not prove my case, but it was a counter-example to your blanket statement that placing encounters in context could never be heavy-handed/manipulative.  That's all I was trying to do there, not change the nature of the argument or create a strawman. 

What I thought you guys needed to do, rather than just respond with uninformative objections of "wrong" and it's various synonyms, was develop your argument to show exactly what you were meaning.

For example, if someone said "all wheeled transportation is fast", responding with "what about tricycles" is *not* a strawman argument.  It's an example that disproves the overly-general statement and encourges the person originally making the statement to clarify.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I concede that the description of abilities will probably need some revision; but as I did not write them, I have to work with what I have.  Ability 1 clearly states it deals 20 points of damage to a minion with only 10 hit points, but you are only allowed to use it once.
> 
> Perhaps a revision is in order, and then we can re-examine this problem?



Probably. I don't think the description of how silos work from the original suggested list of abilities is written quite clearly enough, because I interpreted it to just mean that you were locked in to a particular Attack OR Defense OR Utility ability from a given silo after you've chosen it.



> What Gizmo33 was trying to say, as I understand it, is that if everything resets after 1 minute, it seems likely that whatever context the counter has must occur within that 1 minute timeframe.  If so, then his players would not accept that they always arrive within that crucial timefrime to stop a "ticking clock".
> 
> (Gizmo33, please correct me if I have misunderstood you.)
> 
> 
> RC



Abilities might reset, but the world doesn't.


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think that "strawman" gets misused on this board all of the time to mean something that the reader doesn't agree with and this is not it's definition.
> 
> My argument was not intended to be a proxy argument.  Proving my example as valid does not prove my case, but it was a counter-example to your blanket statement that placing encounters in context could never be heavy-handed/manipulative.  That's all I was trying to do there, not change the nature of the argument or create a strawman.



When did I say "placing encounters in context *could never* be heavy-handed/manipulative"?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Probably. I don't think the description of how silos work from the original suggested list of abilities is written quite clearly enough, because I interpreted it to just mean that you were locked in to a particular Attack OR Defense OR Utility ability from a given silo after you've chosen it.




The text as presented reads

Attack, Defense, and Utility designate "silos". In each encounter, you may use only one ability per silo (and only use it once).​
This means, if your Attack doesn't do enough damage to kill your foe, you have no further attack.

I agree that this is probably not what was intended, but I'd rather the writer changes the rules, for fear that I'll get called out on "altering the circumstances" or somesuch later on.



> Abilities might reset, but the world doesn't.




That is true, and there are some contexts that cause problems because the world doesn't reset.  Indeed, that there is continuity of the world is the only thing, AFAIK, that actually resolves the 15-minute adventuring day problem.

RC


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I argue that combat is only meaningful when there is context and consequence.




I'd agree, while noting that all of these terms rely heavily on the user. For example, if someone includes "entertaining" under the category of "meaningful," then a group of high-level PCs reveling in their power as they kick the snot out of a bunch of mooks who could never challenge them is "meaningful" too.



> The 15-minute adventuring day is obviously not a problem for you, because you only have one combat per day, and like it that way.  You use a mix of per-encounter and per-day abilities, and it hasn't changed this for you.  Wyatt's blog would seem to indicate that using this mix will make you have more encounters per day.  It is this claim which I dispute.




Having DMed and run multiple PCs in a system using per-encounter and per-day abilities, and in a system (M&M) with always usable abilities, I have to say that I think James Wyatt is bang on target on this subject. When I and/or the players/PCs want to have multiple encounters in a day, it's been significantly easier to do so with a mix of per-encounter and per-day abilities.



> I will also agree with you that resource attrition is manipulative.  IMHO, every game has rules that attempt to manipulate its players into approaching the game a certain way.




I think you're right about that.



> Solving a problem within a game often means (1) determining why the problem exists (i.e., what factors manipulate the players to act in the problematic manner) and then (2) changing those factors and/or adding new factors to alter what the players are being manipulated to do.




True. Unlike you, however, I think WotC has determined (1) on the subject of the 15 minute adventuring day and is seeking to achieve (2) in a reasonable way, though naturally I can't be certain about (2) till I actually see 4e. But I'm absolutely certain that a primarily per-encounter model is significantly superior to a significantly per-day model for avoiding the 15 minute adventuring day. And just as certain that the per-encounter model is better suited for a variety of approaches (whether the attrition model, the one big fight a day, multiple big battles which test one to the limit in a day, etc.) than the primarily per-day model. None of the arguments I've seen in this thread thus far persuade me otherwise.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> It's not just a party, it's a party with a clown. And the clown is John Wayne Gacy.








			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Abilities might reset, but the world doesn't.




Bingo. And much more elegantly and succinctly put than I could. Nicely done, JK.


----------



## gizmo33

shilsen said:
			
		

> A spell you're relying on may be doing all sorts of things besides keeping you alive. It might be a Fly spell, without which you won't be able to reach location X. It might be an Arcane Sight, without which you won't be able to detect the magical portal the BBEG escaped through. And so on. As I mentioned before, death is only on the line if you're not thinking through the various possibilities, as you clearly aren't.




(The only thing that's clear to you is that we don't agree.  The rest of it is speculative and argumentative on your part.  "It seems like you're not thinking about this" is more polite.)  

A combat that lasts long enough to effect the duration of a Fly spell is a strange one to me.  I'm assuming something close to the 6 second combat round would be in place for a DnD type system (a reasonable assumption IMO for reasons given in 3E).  Same thing with Arcane Sight.  Unless the DM has somehow mapped out the dungeon after consulting the particular party member's Fly spell duration (heavy handed).  It's just basically not clear to me how the details of combat are going to really matter that much in terms of time - 3 melee rounds is a long time in terms of success/failure, but it's only 18 seconds in terms of plot development, impact on spell durations, etc.  Again, with the information I have this particular example seems overly theoretical. 

Oh, you're right, I did skip over the "calling/running for help" example of the possible "encounter contexts".  That example works in my game.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> As noted above, a DM's failure to imagine beyond a limited area doesn't mean the system is to blame.




Right.  The same thing can be said for those who can't deal with the impact that resource management has on their delicate story lines, except that it would be as rude in that case as it is here.  It seems to me that we're talking about different gaming styles.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Some of them, yes. My game actually literally has no death in it, since I allow PCs to use action pts and swashbuckling cards to survive attacks and effects that kill or take them to -10. And, as noted above, I only usually have 1 encounter a day. Both of which combined should mean (according to the arguments I've seen from RC and yourself) that combat is meaningless in my game.




That's not what I've been trying to show.  What it means is combat would be meaningless in *my game*.  I don't know what your players or your own expectations are, or what other combinations of factors are mitigating the problems I've described (action points and all of that).  Saying "wrong" all of the time to what I'm saying isn't helping me understand it any better - it seems like a waste of my time to expect that from this conversation.  I didn't mean to insult your gaming style, only to suggest that AFAICT elements of it weren't appropriate for my game as far as I could see.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> As noted by Jackelope King above, attaching context to a combat is hardly heavy-handed or manipulative.




As I said, I thought this statement was an over-generalization.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> By definition, the attrition model is also attaching context to a combat by making it relevant in the context of the future combats that the PCs are supposed to have. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.




An *important* difference though is that the attrition model is understood upfront by the players involved, so that it's affect on the events is not nearly as arbitrary and contrived as many of the other examples of "encounter contexts" could be.


----------



## Jedi_Solo

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> A combat that lasts long enough to effect the duration of a Fly spell is a strange one to me.




It might also be dispelled.


----------



## gizmo33

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> It might also be dispelled.




In which case I'll sit around for 1 minute after the battle and then recast it.  Or, the fly spell is a daily resource in which case I'm going to go outside and camp so that I can regain it, which according to some of you is all kinds of unfun.

Note though:  I actually would prefer 4E to have a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources for all classes, so once these examples move into this area I don't have an issue.


----------



## Jedi_Solo

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> In which case I'll sit around for 1 minute after the battle and then recast it.  Or, the fly spell is a daily resource in which case I'm going to go outside and camp so that I can regain it, which according to some of you is all kinds of unfun.




This is assuming that there isn't one of those aforementioned time constraints (either the "you have 10 minutes" variety or of the "you have six hours" variety).  This may or may not be the case.

If you have no time limit then there likely isn't anything stopping you from regaining your spells.  If there is a time limit and you lose a mission-critical spell (and all the backups of said spell somehow) the group had better start thinking fast.


----------



## shilsen

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Note though:  I actually would prefer 4E to have a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources for all classes, so once these examples move into this area I don't have an issue.




From what has been released so far by WotC about spellcasters in 4e, it sounds to me that a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources is precisely what they'll have.


----------



## gizmo33

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> This is assuming that there isn't one of those aforementioned time constraints (either the "you have 10 minutes" variety or of the "you have six hours" variety).  This may or may not be the case.




True, but a one-minute rest time for a 6 hour time constraint is not very significant AFAICT.  Basically, when you combine the factors in such a way that this works out, then it starts to look pretty contrived by my particular design standards.  Clearly if your players are used to this sort of thing then it's not as much of a problem for your game.  The general ideas I get from what's being described here goes back to the "villager on the sacrificial altar" example.  (Suggestions by some of deficiency in my imagination, while pithy and insulting, are so far not convincing.)

Ultimately, I'm not trying to argue that there are *no* examples of "encounter contexts" that would work in my game.  As I said earlier, I already essentially have an "encounter-only resource" situation for overland travel.  So I'm familiar with designing ways of making an encounter interesting when you don't want to increase the deadliness and you don't have long-term resource issues to consider.  

However, I just find this to be a narrower range of possibilities.  As I've said before, it just seems basically logical to me that "encounter+longterm > encounter" in terms of design possibilities.  After all, a per-day resources design *includes* all possible per-encounter resources as well.  What I'm basically dreading is a new system that turns all of my encounters into a version of my overland encounters, and forces me to increase the contrived/arbitrary natures of the encounters to keep in interesting.  Such a thing might suit certain gaming styles but it's not a pleasant prospect due to my preferences.


----------



## Jedi_Solo

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> True, but a one-minute rest time for a 6 hour time constraint is not very significant AFAICT.




(I had the 6-hour one as an "anti-camp for 8 hours and rememorize" situation.)


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> I'd agree, while noting that all of these terms rely heavily on the user. For example, if someone includes "entertaining" under the category of "meaningful," then a group of high-level PCs reveling in their power as they kick the snot out of a bunch of mooks who could never challenge them is "meaningful" too.




Agreed.  And in other threads, I've said the exact same thing.



> Having DMed and run multiple PCs in a system using per-encounter and per-day abilities, and in a system (M&M) with always usable abilities, I have to say that I think James Wyatt is bang on target on this subject. When I and/or the players/PCs want to have multiple encounters in a day, it's been significantly easier to do so with a mix of per-encounter and per-day abilities.




Here's the problem as I see it:

I am currently running a heavily modified version of 3.x with per-day and per-encounter abilities.  I was previously running a lightly modified version of 3.0.  Under neither of these systems did I experience the 15-minute adventuring day problem for the simple reason that, when the characters decided to rest, the world went on.

But I would be foolish to claim that, because I didn't have a "15-minute adventuring day" problem, that the problem didn't exist.  Nor is my ability to easily run games without this problem in 3.0 evidence that 3.0 solves this problem.  While I am continually reading "I run X without this problem" as proof that the system in X solved the problem, if I believed that line of reasoning I would also have to conclude that the system presented in 3.0 solved the problem.

Clearly, this is untrue.  It therefore follows that "Person Y can run System X without Problem Z" is not evidence that System X solves Problem Z.

Moreover, if "Person Y can run System X without Problem Z" and "Person A cannot run System X without Problem Z", then I conclude that it is likely that the problem does not exist because of System X, but rather because of some difference as to the way Person Y and Person A approach the use of System X.



> True. Unlike you, however, I think WotC has determined (1) on the subject of the 15 minute adventuring day and is seeking to achieve (2) in a reasonable way, though naturally I can't be certain about (2) till I actually see 4e.




Whereas, I think that WotC _believes_ that they have determined (1), but I am not convinced that they have done so because (a) their statements seem to imply that they believe that Problem Z is a function of System X, which I know through my own experience to be untrue, (b) without fail, in every single case where a person has posted to EN World seeking help with resolving Problem Z, the resulting advice has been that the person apply a cost to resting/resetting, (c) my own analysis of the problem concurs that the problem results from a lack of "risk vs. reward" balance hinged on resting and resetting, and (d) as people support ways to use the new System B to solve Problem Z, they continually resort to using a "risk vs. reward" balance hinged on resting and resetting.

Moreover, if it is true that "If the wizard (or insert Class X) has enough wizardy things to do every round, he will not use up his best wizardy resources as quickly, and consequently will not cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem" then the converse would also be true:  "If the wizard (or insert Class X) has fewer wizardy things to do, he will use up his best wizardy resources more quickly, and consequently will be more likely to cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem".

IOW, if this was true, the 15-minute adventuring day problem would be an artifact of earlier editions, that was made less common by 3e.  This is not my experience, or the experience of anyone that I know.  I have played D&D since Christmas day 1979, with the Blue Box set, with hundreds of people in several states, and in two countries.  In no case, whether I or another was DMing, have I ever heard of the "15-minute adventuring day" problem, or simular, until 3.0.

I cannot help but conclude that "If the wizard (or insert Class X) has enough wizardy things to do every round, he will not use up his best wizardy resources as quickly, and consequently will not cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem" cannot, in general, be true.  I do, however, believe that it is what WotC believes to be true.

System B may be more satisfying than System X for many reasons, depending upon playstyle preferences and what you want from a game.  However, "Abilities might reset, but the world doesn't" is (IMHO & IME) far closer to resolving Problem Z for those who have it than is switching to System B.

Worse, my analysis indicates to me that using the type of approach that causes Problem Z with System X is likely to cause even greater problems with System B.


----------



## gizmo33

shilsen said:
			
		

> From what has been released so far by WotC about spellcasters in 4e, it sounds to me that a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources is precisely what they'll have.




That is what I hope.  This current thought experiment/debate of "what's wrong with an all per-encounter resources design"  came about due to the somewhat peculiar history of this thread.  IMO though, it was worth discussing because many people's objections to the current resource design in 3E sounded like they were advocating an all per-encounter resources design, even though it would be irrelevant in the case that this discussion were about actual 4E only, and not about possible resource designs for adventure games.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Whereas, I think that WotC _believes_ that they have determined (1), but I am not convinced that they have done so because (a) their statements seem to imply that they believe that Problem Z is a function of System X, which I know through my own experience to be untrue,




On this subject, I would ask everyone to read the designers notes in a certain way.  It's usually pretty obvious when they are discussing actual experience and when they are discussing the consequences of hypothetical designs.  It's one thing to say "I played a warlock in WoW and I was bored" (to innacurrately paraphrase, but you get the idea), and another thing to say "if I let warlocks cast my new fershizzle spell, everything will be great".  The former is a statement of experience and much more objective than the latter.   The latter requires some "heavy lifting" in terms of logic and reasoning and I don't think the designers are always either prepared or willing to get into these details.  But without those details, I (and RC and others probably) read these things, contrast them with our own experiences, and start to think that something perhaps has gone wrong.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> the 15 minute adventuring day problem happens because you use your best (wizardly) resources very quickly, and then need to rest to recover them​



Yes, that's pretty much true.  Except, I wouldn't use "your best" resources and more "too many" resources.  Even if you have some of your best resources left, it doesn't mean you have ENOUGH resources to continue, so you rest.


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why do you use your best resources first?  Presumably because you want to do something "wizardy" every round, and
> your remaining resources don't feel "wizardy" to you.​



This is where I disagree.  The problem as described by Wyatt is that is is possible to run a game where people don't rest after every combat.  However, to do this one needs to run combats where each one doesn't use up too many resources so that the party feels "safe" enough to continue.  However, to do this you need to have an encounter where you can cast, for instance, 2 fireballs(when you are level 7) and it's over.  You likely have another fireball or lightning bolt or 2 left and some 4th level spells as well.  The encounters are significant, in that if you had just sat there and used a crossbow, the enemies might have killed one of your party members before the 1d6 of damage per round had beat them.  However, when you use the fireballs, the battle is over in 2 rounds and wasn't that interesting.

The reason the 15 minute day comes along is that in order to make it MORE interesting, a lot of DMs up the power of the encounter so that it requires 4 fireballs and 2 magic missiles to win.  The combat lasts a little bit longer, adds a bit more tension and crosses the line in player perception to "I'm out of 3rd level spells, maybe we should rest".  Even though the caster may still have his "big guns" left(4th level spells), he is out of his average guns.  One big gun may not be enough to defeat the next encounter by itself and the party chooses to rest rather than take the risk.


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If the wizard (or insert Class X) has enough wizardy things to do every round, he will not use up his best wizardy resources as quickly, and consequently will not cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem.​



Doing something wizardly each round isn't really the cause of the 15 minute day.  That's a different problem altogether.


----------



## gizmo33

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> However, when you use the fireballs, the battle is over in 2 rounds and wasn't that interesting.




I actually agree with the bulk of your analysis, but this part is where we differ - or you might be implying something here that isn't true IMO.  The battle is interesting because you have used 2 fireballs in a situation where you might need one later for the BBEG.  Now, absent all other factors and context that in itself is not very interesting, but that is the dimension of interest that resource management adds to this encounter.  The fact is that the player could have considered using a lesser weapon instead of fireball if he really thought the battle were all that conclusive, and the bearing that the choice is going to have on future encounters makes it a meaningful choice.  

The other possiblity here is that you're implying that it's undesireable to have something uninteresting happen for 2 rounds.  Frankly, since it is only taking two rounds to resolve, a combat system that is fairly streamlined will not make this much of a problem IMO.  The combat will be quickly resolved and it's *outcome*, in terms of remaining resources, will be far more relevant to the overall adventure than the details of the actual encounter.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Attack, Defense, and Utility designate "silos".  In each encounter, you may use only one ability per silo (and only use it once).
> 
> If your Attack doesn't do enough damage to kill your foe, you have no further attack.
> 
> 
> 
> You said that Gizmo33's example (where the BBEG is always 10 seconds away from sacrificing the villager) was a strawman; I demonstrated that it was not.



Okay, to clarify (maybe I was a bit blind to the fact that people couldn't read my thought processes when writing down the ability examples  ):
The Silos only apply within a given "time scale". 
So, using something from the silo for the "At Will" power does not affect the same silo type in the Per Encounter or Per Day frame. 

Also note that the Silos limitations also only apply to their time frame - the At Will powers can thus be used each round, but you can't use two abilities from the same silo (though it is implied, but not stated - until this post - that each ability use will require a partial action and thus you can only take a move, not activate a second power each round, anyway. But some abilities might require different # of actions.)

(For the "vampiric-touch"-like ability I assumed that you can actually touch your enemy and your ally at the same time, at least for the purposes of this power. The main point of the ability is that the caster has to get into melee range...)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I actually agree with the bulk of your analysis, but this part is where we differ - or you might be implying something here that isn't true IMO.  The battle is interesting because you have used 2 fireballs in a situation where you might need one later for the BBEG.  Now, absent all other factors and context that in itself is not very interesting, but that is the dimension of interest that resource management adds to this encounter.  The fact is that the player could have considered using a lesser weapon instead of fireball if he really thought the battle were all that conclusive, and the bearing that the choice is going to have on future encounters makes it a meaningful choice.



It wasn't that interesting because you knew the 2 fireballs would win.  Take, for example, an encounter with 5 enemies, each of which does an average damage of 5 damage per round and have 20 hitpoints.  Let's simplify it by saying it is just you against the 6 enemies.  It works out the same with more PCs, but it's just more complicated.  You have 40 hitpoints.

If they win initiative, you won't die since they won't do over your hitpoints in damage.  If you average 20 damage with a fireball you know that it will take you, at most 2 rounds to defeat them with 2 fireballs(the second one only to take out those who made their save the first time).  After the fight, you'll need a bit of healing.  Mechanically uninteresting because it was a forgone conclusion that you'd win with the resources you had.

You can't choose to use lesser abilities since, your magic missile might only do 15 damage and two rounds of hits from those enemies will kill you.  So, you need to use better resources in order to win, but the better resources turn the battle into a non-event which ONLY matters in the game of resources attrition.

The battle itself was uninteresting, but it's consequences later might be.  But the resource attrition game doesn't matter a large amount of the time since it can be bypassed by resting.  You might fight 3 of these uninteresting battles, then rest so that you can recover your lost resources.


			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The other possiblity here is that you're implying that it's undesireable to have something uninteresting happen for 2 rounds.  Frankly, since it is only taking two rounds to resolve, a combat system that is fairly streamlined will not make this much of a problem IMO.  The combat will be quickly resolved and it's *outcome*, in terms of remaining resources, will be far more relevant to the overall adventure than the details of the actual encounter.



Well, the designers so far have said battle takes about the same amount of time to run, just with a couple of more enemies.  I don't think combat is going to be that streamlined.

Most 2 round combats (or 3 or 4 assuming a couple of rounds of maneuvering with no actual damage or negligible damage taking place) still take a good 30-60 minutes to resolve once you go through the process of everyone rolling init, writing it all down, explaining the layout of the encounter area to the players, placing the minis on the mat, having each player decide their actions each round(discussing it amongst themselves and such), the inevitable out of game joking around, etc.

Anything that is going to take that much time to run needs to be interesting and significant.


----------



## IanArgent

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Note though:  I actually would prefer 4E to have a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources for all classes, so once these examples move into this area I don't have an issue.




This has been confirmed directly. "All classes will have a mix of at-will, per-encounter, and per day resources". (I'm looking for the source, but it was a Dev - I want to say Andy Chambers.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Doing something wizardly each round isn't really the cause of the 15 minute day.  That's a different problem altogether.




I agree; but please recall that I am answering a very specific counter-proposal for the source of the problem.

You said



> Even if you have some of your best resources left, it doesn't mean you have ENOUGH resources to continue, so you rest.




and



> The problem as described by Wyatt is that is is possible to run a game where people don't rest after every combat.  However, to do this one needs to run combats where each one doesn't use up too many resources so that the party feels "safe" enough to continue.




Of course, as I pointed out, it is possible in 3.x to run a game where people don't rest after every combat.  The question is, does the system as presented encourage or discourage resting after every combat?

"Safe" is a relative term.  In general, I would say that a party will continue so long as it is safer/more beneficial to continue than it is to rest.  Those parties who have 15-minute adventuring days do so because no amount of attrition is safter than 0 attrition.  Therefore, "safe enough" is 0 attrition.

Resolving the problem requires altering the safety levels of attrition and rest.  For example, consider the following:

party believes:

resting safer than continuing - party rests

continuing safer than resting - party continues​
The constant mention of timelines is to add a condition where the party is forced to believe that there are potentially dire consequences to resting.


----------



## gizmo33

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It works out the same with more PCs, but it's just more complicated.






			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The battle itself was uninteresting, but it's consequences later might be.  But the resource attrition game doesn't matter a large amount of the time since it can be bypassed by resting.




My first point:  it's somewhat misleading (not intentionally) to remove, from the example, the dice rolling, other PCs, and so on, basically simplifying the encounter and then say that the expected result was uninteresting.  I would agree - having monsters do an average amount of damage is uninteresting.  Giving a wizard a choice of just two different combat spells to cast is uninteresting.  And reducing the options you have in terms of resource expenditure, by taking the other PCs out of the equation, also makes it uninteresting.  I may have missed the point of your example, but the example's simplifications AFAICT seemed to create a situation that doesn't really exist in a typical DnD game.  It also removes most all of the interesting aspects from an operational standpoint.

Secondly, the resource attrition game is not "bypassed" by resting.  Resting is one of the options in a resource attrition game.  That's like saying that killing a monster "bypasses" the DnD monster encounter.  Resting is one of the ways that you deal with low resources.  Now people have complained about resting for two reasons IIRC - one is that they think it hurts the "story", the second is that they think it's a 100% certain situation and thus a formality and tedious, or unreasonably frustrating and deadly if it's not a 100% certain situation.  I've tried to address each of these objections in detail in previous posts.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> You might fight 3 of these uninteresting battles, then rest so that you can recover your lost resources.




Shilsen why trying to get me to understand how encounter-contexts can make an encounter interesting in spite of the fact that it poses no risk of death.  Although you both may not be of the same mind, don't you think his reasoning would apply here?  (I actually disagree with him on some key points, but I don't think those affect this particular situation.)  

Your statement here does what Wyatt's did originally AFAICT - it seems to discount the fact that there are often consequences for resting, and thus the events that lead up to you being forced to rest (the three "uninteresting" battles) are actually very interesting to players that aren't naive/uninterested about resource issues in the game.  Granted, if resource issues aren't a party of the playing style then this is probably the case.  But if they are, then weathering the first three encounters with enough resources intact that you can continue with the adventure is an important part of the challenge of those three encounters.

Failing to do so is a kind of non-deadly failure that I like to have in the game.  It also vaguely mimmics reality where resource depletion is often a reason for failure.  The alternative, with an "all-per-encounter" resource design is that the PCs just keep fighting until everything else is dead or they're dead.  

An earlier discussion got to the point where folks suggested restoring some sort of "fatigue rules" to the system, but this results in either a hefty dose of DM fiat, or a system that just restores the original set of problems.  If a simple set of fatigue rules were otherwise compatible with an "all-per-encounter resources" design, then both parties could be happy though. 



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Well, the designers so far have said battle takes about the same amount of time to run, just with a couple of more enemies.  I don't think combat is going to be that streamlined.




That's a shame.  I'm starting to get a little tired of how long combat takes in DnD - even the life-and-death ones - 4 hours of dice rolling for a two minute stretch of time where things are exciting.  I had seen blurbs where the designers seemed to be trying to shorten this.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Anything that is going to take that much time to run needs to be interesting and significant.




Agreed.  IME my players develop a pretty good sense of the impact that resource usage is having on their success during the overall adventure because there are often consequences to resting.  Without these sorts of experiences that allows players to put things in this context, I can start to see how the battles are just tedious.


----------



## gizmo33

IanArgent said:
			
		

> This has been confirmed directly. "All classes will have a mix of at-will, per-encounter, and per day resources". (I'm looking for the source, but it was a Dev - I want to say Andy Chambers.




Yes, and I've already tried to make it clear that this conversation has stemmed from folks saying "all-per encounter resource game isn't that bad" in which case that is what the discussion has been about for me (mostly) for the last 1,000 posts.  Granted, it's only relevant to 4E to the degree that this design choice is not set in stone, and perhaps it's just an interesting topic in it's own right.  For example, I might be finding out that I can be more creative with my encounter designs.


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The constant mention of timelines is to add a condition where the party is forced to believe that there are potentially dire consequences to resting.




I'll add - it seems pretty natural to me to imagine that the combination of an intelligent, aggressive BBEG with a dynamic environment and a 24-hour (or close) rest period will almost certainly produce a very natural seeming set of consequences, many of them dire.

Contrast this with (arguably, granted) the more contrived examples of "how you keep the party moving" in an all per-encounter design.


----------



## Jackelope King

Since you seemed to miss my post earlier, gizmo, I'll post it again.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think that "strawman" gets misused on this board all of the time to mean something that the reader doesn't agree with and this is not it's definition.
> 
> My argument was not intended to be a proxy argument.  Proving my example as valid does not prove my case, but it was a counter-example to your blanket statement that placing encounters in context could never be heavy-handed/manipulative.  That's all I was trying to do there, not change the nature of the argument or create a strawman.



When did I say "placing encounters in context *could never* be heavy-handed/manipulative"?



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'll add - it seems pretty natural to me to imagine that the combination of an intelligent, aggressive BBEG with a dynamic environment and a 24-hour (or close) rest period will almost certainly produce a very natural seeming set of consequences, many of them dire.
> 
> Contrast this with (arguably, granted) the more contrived examples of "how you keep the party moving" in an all per-encounter design.



Are you refering to the aforementioned time restrictions as "the more contrived exampels of "how you keep the party moving" in an all per-encounter design." ?


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Since you seemed to miss my post earlier, gizmo, I'll post it again.




I guess I did.  In fact I just scanned the page again and I still don't see it.  Sorry, didn't mean to be rude.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> When did I say "placing encounters in context *could never* be heavy-handed/manipulative"?




In the process of breaking down arguments into manageable chunks, I'm often having to provide a specific example or counter-example to a point.  This is not intended to be a replacement/proxy for the original argument but instead a building block, and hence, is not a strawman argument.  With that in mind -

You never said "could never" but if I say "A is B", in certain contexts that means the same thing (ie. "B can never be C").  In the context of what you were saying, you were suggesting that placing an encounter in context was sufficient.  What I actually was trying to point out with my example was that it wasn't sufficient.  The next step was to show that as you try to avoid heavy-handedness, you're increasingly relying on a narrower set of circumstances that might not fit the encounter, ie. it becomes more and more difficult.  Contrast this with my statements about the resource management issues being a more natural fit for the game (and easier to engineer).  Regardless, my main point here is that my counter-example was never intended to be a strawman argument for the overall (and more complicated) issue.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Are you refering to the aforementioned time restrictions as "the more contrived exampels of "how you keep the party moving" in an all per-encounter design." ?




?  I don't know what you mean here.  My statement that you quoted was saying something else, related to the "time restrictions" issue only in the ways that the arguments are connected.  Time restrictions in themselves are not contrived, is that what you're trying to say here?


----------



## Jackelope King

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I guess I did.  In fact I just scanned the page again and I still don't see it.  Sorry, didn't mean to be rude.



Not a problem at all 



> In the process of breaking down arguments into manageable chunks, I'm often having to provide a specific example or counter-example to a point.  This is not intended to be a replacement/proxy for the original argument but instead a building block, and hence, is not a strawman argument.  With that in mind -
> 
> You never said "could never" but if I say "A is B", in certain contexts that means the same thing (ie. "B can never be C").  In the context of what you were saying, you were suggesting that placing an encounter in context was sufficient.  What I actually was trying to point out with my example was that it wasn't sufficient.  The next step was to show that as you try to avoid heavy-handedness, you're increasingly relying on a narrower set of circumstances that might not fit the encounter, ie. it becomes more and more difficult.  Contrast this with my statements about the resource management issues being a more natural fit for the game (and easier to engineer).  Regardless, my main point here is that my counter-example was never intended to be a strawman argument for the overall (and more complicated) issue.



It came across as one, but I thank you for your reply. I still think that no encounter is meaningful out-of-context, and neither do I think that putting an encounter into the context of the world as a whole means that you're being heavy handed.

Can it mean that? Certainly. _"And once again, you swoop in to save the princess just as the dragon is about to eat her!" "What is that, like, the tenth time?" "Eleventh, by my count." "You two! Shaddup and listen to my story or both of your PCs are getting the plague!"_

However, the other extreme is even more distatesful. The idea of just going from room to room in a dungeon where nothing that happened in the other room matters beyond the spells I cast and the hit points I lost and the loot I collected? *shudder* And yes, I'm fully aware that this is an extreme and I'm 99.99% sure that this isn't what you're advocating.



> ?  I don't know what you mean here.  My statement that you quoted was saying something else, related to the "time restrictions" issue only in the ways that the arguments are connected.  Time restrictions in themselves are not contrived, is that what you're trying to say here?



No, I'm not. I was just trying to recieve clarification on what you were saying there. I honestly don't know what you mean when you're talking about "the more contrived exampels of "how you keep the party moving" in an all per-encounter design."?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "Safe" is a relative term.  In general, I would say that a party will continue so long as it is safer/more beneficial to continue than it is to rest.  Those parties who have 15-minute adventuring days do so because no amount of attrition is safter than 0 attrition.  Therefore, "safe enough" is 0 attrition.
> 
> Resolving the problem requires altering the safety levels of attrition and rest.  For example, consider the following:
> 
> party believes:
> 
> resting safer than continuing - party rests
> 
> continuing safer than resting - party continues​
> The constant mention of timelines is to add a condition where the party is forced to believe that there are potentially dire consequences to resting.



Judging from my experience, the 15 minute adventure day is usually not caused by fearing that 0 attrition is bad. It comes from the fact that you simply can lose that many resources in a few encounters. Sometimes the fault is simply the encounter design itself. Instead of using the standard EL = PL rule, encounters are actually harder (I am guilty of doing that a in my own adventures, too, but I see the same in many adventure paths I have only played in).

One of the reasons is the same that might be a consequence of an encounter-based design paradigm: You can always get your resources back if you rest long enough. Sure, it takes a day, but effectively this means each individual encounter will never threaten you. So, why care at all, unless you are under time constraints?

A system that is balanced by encounter cannot entirely remove this fear. In fact, encounters might be intentionally designed more dangerous than they are in D&D 3.x. But I suspect the end result is the same, because the guidelines of the 3rd Edition are followed less in many adventures.

Personally, I have no real problem with most encounters becoming a little bit dangerous (or being as dangerous as they effectively are "today"). If the difference between a fight against minions and the fight against the big boss is not the difficulty, but the encounter setup, I am all for it. 
In D&D 3, a mook fight shows off how _awesome_ your character has become, since you don't break a sweat but in the end, you are standing on a pile of corpses. In D&D 4, you show off how _heroic_ you are because you fought till your last breath and didn't give up despite the odds, and now stand bloodied and tired on a pile of corpses. (A minute later, you might - mechanically at least - lost most traces from the fight, but you know things could have done differently...)


----------



## 3catcircus

IanArgent said:
			
		

> The sacred cow of some "units" (characters) have different "logistics" (resource management) than others.




Considering the fact that having different logistics is the way it works in almost every other game and in real-life, what is the big deal?

Monopoly example:  do you add another house or wait until you have enough for a hotel?

Military wargame (and real-world) example:  Armor units are more concerned with the number of spare hummvee engines they have than the number of 5.56mm ammo.  Infantry is just the opposite.



> Whoah. Item crafting is a 3.x innovation (effectively); and is by far a small part of the wizard's role. The wizard's role is (and always has been) artillery/offensive support. The cleric's role has been (and they want to change that) the hit Point battery. Turning undead is a stunt, and a terribly complicated one at that.
> 
> The 4ed mentaility is that a character should fulfill his role in every encounter, and every round within that encounter. That doesn't necessarily mean the wizard should have a _fireball_ for every round, but that he should be able to do something that the fighter cannot do (the stereotypical example, shoot  crossbow) with his action.
> 
> This is a major change from previous editions, and I for one welcome it.




As was pointed out by someone else, item crafting has existed prior to 3.x.



> Simple question - do you believe that a character should be able to do something appropriate to his class and role all the time, or not. And if so, why not?




No - because there will always be situations where a character's skills are totally unsuited for.  More importantly, because resource management is one of several areas that prevent the game from becoming totally one-sided in favor of the PCs.

Just because it is "cool," doesn't mean you should be allowed to do it whenever and wherever you want.

Let's look at the prototypical fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard mix, with all at 1st level.

In a CR1 combat situation, the fighter has the best chance of hitting and has one more feat than everyone else - assuming he took Power Attack and Cleave, he can potentially hit and even kill two opponents in one round, more if he gets an AoO.  He is designed for combat and combat alone.  He can't cast spells, do sneak attacks, turn undead, find traps, or make magic scrolls,

The cleric doesn't have the same chances of hitting, but he can cast a spell or turn undead.  In a combat against undead, even though he has less chance of hitting, he can be more effective than the fighter by turning undead.  He can chose to cast a spell in combat, or save it for out of combat. He can do stuff the fighter *can't* do outside of combat, and he can throw the change-up - spontaneously casting a heal spell in a pinch during combat.

The rogue has the same chances of hitting as the cleric in combat. He can't cast spells, but he can potentially do more damage than the fighter due to his sneak attack.  He is probably the most useful outside of combat - detecting traps, appraising items, breaking into a dungeon room, etc.

The wizard has the same chances of hitting as the cleric and rogue.  He can cast spells like the cleric (but has one less total number of spells). Unlike the cleric, he has a helper (familiar) that can aid in combat or out of combat, and, he can do something the others can't do - create magic scrolls.

The bottom line is that each of the classes has their own strengths and weaknesses and just because a class is less effective than another in combat is no reason to try and have them do more in combat than they could in previous editions.  Classes that are less effective in combat are more effective in non-combat activities.


----------



## IanArgent

OK - I'm exagerating a little when I talk about "every round, do something appropriate to your class and role". But I find that D&D causes primary spellcasters to have to act as crappy fighters by falling back to crossbow or mace far too often. I vastly prefer Shadowrun's style of magic where as long as you can hack the drain, you can keep casting; all day every day and twice a round with reflex enhancement.   

Sorry - the drastic limits on spellcasting that D&D places on characters (especially low-level spellcasters) bugs the ever-loving crap out of me - it's why I played a single-class caster exactly once.

Let's try that without the hyperbole:

Any character should be able to use his core class abilities in most encounters. I have no problem with the odd encounter that locks off a character from using his core abilities from time to time. But in the end, a spellcaster should be able to be as effective _in his role_ as a non-spellcaster; in as many encounters as the non-spellcaster can be effective _in their role_; in the same circumstances. So given the same amount of rest/reload; a spellcaster shoudl be able to go just as far as a non-spellcaster on the same level of class abilities, and be able to use his class abilities.

Hence, all classes have a mix of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities. Fighters get powered up a little, spellcasters get powered down a little.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Judging from my experience, the 15 minute adventure day....comes from the fact that you simply can lose that many resources in a few encounters.




I agree.  This is definitely part of it.  This is part of the reason why, IMHO, those that suffer a 15-minute adventuring day _now_ may potentially suffer a 5-minute adventuring day under 4e.

A.  The play styles that tend to result in a 15 minute adventuring day do not require discretion on the part of players re: resource usage.

B.  Because resource conservation is not a factor, battles tend to be designed to challenge a party with all its resources.

C.  Per-encounter resources narrow the benchmark of challenge.


RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

3catcircus said:
			
		

> Considering the fact that having different logistics is the way it works in almost every other game and in real-life, what is the big deal?
> 
> Monopoly example:  do you add another house or wait until you have enough for a hotel?



That's not differing logistics.  It's the same logistics for every player in the game, they are all given the same choices.


			
				3catcircus said:
			
		

> Military wargame (and real-world) example:  Armor units are more concerned with the number of spare hummvee engines they have than the number of 5.56mm ammo.  Infantry is just the opposite.



Sure, but the logistics themselves are the same: Do I have enough of what I need to continue?

D&D has a closer analogy to a situation where Armor is concerned about whether they have enough tank shells to keep firing, but they only brought 4 with them.  They'll get a new shipment of 4 tomorrow, but can they hold off the enemy until then?  Best to hide in the tank and do nothing until a big enough threat comes along to waste one of them.  Or, you could exit the tank and try to take out the enemy with a knife.

While the infantry are stocked with so much ammo that they could fire their guns continuously for days and not run out.  Plus, they get regularly resupplied so they never worry about running out.

One group worries about logistics, the other one doesn't.  That doesn't happen in real life.  Instead, logistics in D&D is used as a balance on power.  Since the tank can easily take out almost any target the infantry can(and with overkill), it wouldn't be very much fun to be the infantry if you could just send in the tank to do everything.  So you put restrictions on the tank in order to make sure they don't do EVERYTHING.


			
				3catcircus said:
			
		

> As was pointed out by someone else, item crafting has existed prior to 3.x.



I don't count the item crafting in 2nd edition(and 1st was similar) as being item crafting, per se.  There was a large section of the DMG dedicated to explaining how each magic item was supposed to be unique.  In order to craft ANY item at all, you needed strange and rare magical components and that each item should be the result of 2 or 3 adventures worth of gathering components to make one.

There weren't any "rules" for it either.  It was more like "Your DM can tell you what you'll have to do to make an item and whether or not you can have it based on how powerful it is."


			
				3catcircus said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that each of the classes has their own strengths and weaknesses and just because a class is less effective than another in combat is no reason to try and have them do more in combat than they could in previous editions.  Classes that are less effective in combat are more effective in non-combat activities.



The problem is in the TIME it takes to do those activities and the involvement in them.  As I've pointed out in other threads that in an average session 4 hour session of my home game, 3 hours of it are spent in combat.  In an average 4 hour session of Living Greyhawk or Xen'drik Expeditions, about 3 hours are spent on combat.

The remaining hour is spend partially on the party discussing courses of action with each other, partially describing things to the party, partially role playing, and partially solving non-combat encounters.

On average, I say our wizard spends...maybe 10 minutes per session on non-combat activities.  The Rogue spends maybe 10.  The bard or diplomat in the party spends maybe 15 talking to people and doing their thing.

For the other 3 hours of the session, the other players would like to feel that they have some reason to sitting at the table.  They don't like being told "Well, you knew by not playing a fighter you weren't going to be good at fighting.  So, just sit there and wait for your 10 minutes of shining."


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I agree.  This is definitely part of it.  This is part of the reason why, IMHO, those that suffer a 15-minute adventuring day _now_ may potentially suffer a 5-minute adventuring day under 4e.
> 
> A.  The play styles that tend to result in a 15 minute adventuring day do not require discretion on the part of players re: resource usage.



I've already said this isn't true.  Groups I've ran who have the 15 minute problem DO use discretion with their powers.  They don't open up with their most powerful abilities.  They use only enough to get the job done.

The only reason they had the 15 minute problem is that *I* as the DM kept using harder and harder enemies against them because it was no fun for me or a number of the players to constantly run 1 hour long battles which used only a couple of resources and whose ending was a foregone conclusion.

If this same party was able to:
A. Fight a battle where they had to use a significant number of resources
B. Felt like the battle might turn against them if they didn't try hard enough
C. Got all their resources back afterwards

I think it would be a lot of fun.  And by the way, I consider per encounter abilities to still be resources.  To me it matters more if someone got to cast a cool and flashy spell each that was significantly better than "I attack with my crossbow" each round for 6 rounds than it matters that the PCs lose resources for the next battle.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I've already said this isn't true.




That doesn't make it so, however.



> The only reason they had the 15 minute problem is that *I* as the DM kept using harder and harder enemies against them because it was no fun for me or a number of the players to constantly run 1 hour long battles which used only a couple of resources and whose ending was a foregone conclusion.




IOW, you removed their ability to act with discretion.  Again, this is something that I covered in my analysis Lo! these many pages ago.

I have to wonder how you will react to 4e if it is no fun for you or a number of your players to constantly run 1 hour long battles which use only a couple of resources and whose ending is a foregone conclusion?

This is a point that I have been trying to make for a very, very long time.

RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> My first point:  it's somewhat misleading (not intentionally) to remove, from the example, the dice rolling, other PCs, and so on, basically simplifying the encounter and then say that the expected result was uninteresting.  I may have missed the point of your example, but the example's simplifications AFAICT seemed to create a situation that doesn't really exist in a typical DnD game.  It also removes most all of the interesting aspects from an operational standpoint.



The point is, although it's more complicated than what I've said (PCs are individually taking damage, the cleric is healing them, they are using magic items, each party member is doing damage or missing each round), what it comes down to it is that in each round the party loses so many resources such as hit points, spells, magic items and the enemies lose so many resources.  If you take an enemy out of the battle, you remove its damage from your party.

Most of the time a good party can figure out quickly that their resources are capable of handling the enemy without any REAL risk of death("They did 13 damage first round and 18 damage second round.  The cleric can heal the damage each round with a cure moderate.  We are perfectly fine.").

However, they know that if their cleric wasn't there to heal them, and they only had 30 hitpoints, they'd be dead in 2 rounds.  So they aren't about to stop healing to "conserve resources".  They NEED to use those resources to survive, but it is a fairly big no-brainer than they'll win using the resources.


			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Secondly, the resource attrition game is not "bypassed" by resting.  Resting is one of the options in a resource attrition game.  That's like saying that killing a monster "bypasses" the DnD monster encounter.  Resting is one of the ways that you deal with low resources.  Now people have complained about resting for two reasons IIRC - one is that they think it hurts the "story", the second is that they think it's a 100% certain situation and thus a formality and tedious, or unreasonably frustrating and deadly if it's not a 100% certain situation.  I've tried to address each of these objections in detail in previous posts.



I haven't seen anything that could explain to me why those aren't two valid points.  The story is often hurt by resting.  Although, strangely enough, my concern had more to do with a situation when there were no story concerns at all for resting.

I was running a party through RTTToEE and then Castle Maure afterwards.  RTTToEE has built in options for "What happens if the PCs leave for a week and then come back.  However, at low levels they were tedious and lame.  Each section of the temple would hire a small number of new guards in a week.  So, when the PCs were at low levels and they'd walk to a major town to get items sold and buy new ones, they'd merely have to fight the entrance encounter again.  By the end of 1-2 game sessions, the party would have enough treasure that they'd want to sell it again(or they'd be out of resources) and would leave the dungeon and come back in a couple of weeks.

So, then, we'd spend one session fighting all of the battles we fought two sessions ago, run out of time, then have the party continue to actually get further into the dungeon on the following session.  Then, they'd realize that they had too much loot to carry and they were out of resources, so they took the opportunity to leave and sell their stuff again.  So, every second session was fighting the same battles over and over again.  Which got boring for me as a DM.  I wanted to get to the cooler part of the adventure instead of rolling the same 12 crossbow shots from the entrance guards again.

So, I gave up allowing the temple to recruit new people so that we'd get somewhere.  I figured they'd run out of possible candidates after a while.  Then, the party realized this and started resting in the dungeon in areas they'd already cleared out, sealing the doors so no one would bother them.  When they realized they could do this and get away with it, they started resting more often and more often.  There really were no story concerns except that the PCs knew that the temple was up to something big and they needed to stop it.  But there was no urgency in the PCs because they were fairly certain that I wouldn't let the temple succeed before they got to the end of the dungeon.

Once they got high enough level to teleport, I didn't have to worry about restocking the dungeon at all anymore or whether or not someone would discover them while sleeping.  They'd simply teleport out as soon as they felt they had used enough resources or they had enough treasure and teleport in the next day, fully rested.  Since there were no story concerns and no consequences to resting, they did it whenever they wanted.

The only REAL concern was it didn't seem very "realistic" for them to be exiting the dungeon after every battle just because they could.  It seemed like they should WANT to push on, to reach the leaders of the temple and wipe out the den of evil as soon as they could before their plan could be unleashed.

Also, resting does bypass the resource attrition game.  It doesn't bypass resource management, that's a different game though:  "Will I need my fireball against the BBEG?" is a
different question than "Will I have enough spells left to survive against the BBEG?"

Running out of any one spell or spell level may not be enough reason to rest, but there reaches a critical point where you CANNOT continue with the resources you have.  I want to remove this limit.


			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Your statement here does what Wyatt's did originally AFAICT - it seems to discount the fact that there are often consequences for resting, and thus the events that lead up to you being forced to rest (the three "uninteresting" battles) are actually very interesting to players that aren't naive/uninterested about resource issues in the game.  Granted, if resource issues aren't a party of the playing style then this is probably the case.  But if they are, then weathering the first three encounters with enough resources intact that you can continue with the adventure is an important part of the challenge of those three encounters.



But as was pointed out previously, if you fight the 3 "uninteresting" battles, end up with not enough resources to continue, then you either risk death by resting or death by continuing on.  You don't have enough resources for another battle one way or another.

The only real solution to this is to rest after 2 "uninteresting" encounters to make sure that you have enough resources left to fight any random encounter that might attack at night.


			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Failing to do so is a kind of non-deadly failure that I like to have in the game.  It also vaguely mimmics reality where resource depletion is often a reason for failure.  The alternative, with an "all-per-encounter" resource design is that the PCs just keep fighting until everything else is dead or they're dead.



Exactly, and that's what I want.  I want it to be that the ONLY reason heroes fail is that they didn't try or they went in WAY over their head.  Failing due to the fact that you used too many magic missiles against those orcs is...not very heroic feeling.  It's very "realistic".  But that's not what I'm going for when I play D&D.


			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Agreed.  IME my players develop a pretty good sense of the impact that resource usage is having on their success during the overall adventure because there are often consequences to resting.  Without these sorts of experiences that allows players to put things in this context, I can start to see how the battles are just tedious.



It's just that unless you push the PCs forward, that they can find a solution to 90% of all consequences to resting:  Leave the dungeon and come back tomorrow or spike the door shut are the two biggest and easiest(I've also seen rope tricks, illusions and silence spells, and any number of other adventurer tricks).

It IS possible to push a party to continue with story reasons, but that almost always ends up in a TPK.  After all, if a party is stuck in a situation where they have to fight the BBEG with almost no resources or rest and have the BBEG kill the kidnapped villager, then they HAVE to continue if they want to be the heroes.  Forcing a party to fight a battle they can't handle will often cause a TPK.

A party put in that situation runs into a lose-lose situation.  The only win in that situation was to conserve enough resources that you don't get into the lose-lose situation.  Which basically asks the questions "Was luck on the PCs side?", "Did the wizard use a crossbow while the cleric attacked with his mace for the at least one of the combats?", and "Did the DM plan out the strength of the encounters correctly?"


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I have to wonder how you will react to 4e if it is no fun for you or a number of your players to constantly run 1 hour long battles which use only a couple of resources and whose ending is a foregone conclusion?



I play Mutants and Masterminds, so that's not a problem for me!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> I play Mutants and Masterminds, so that's not a problem for me!




I am currently running a heavily modified version of 3.x with per-day and per-encounter abilities. I was previously running a lightly modified version of 3.0. Under neither of these systems did I experience the 15-minute adventuring day problem for the simple reason that, when the characters decided to rest, the world went on.

But I would be foolish to claim that, because I didn't have a "15-minute adventuring day" problem, that the problem didn't exist. Nor is my ability to easily run games without this problem in 3.0 evidence that 3.0 solves this problem. While I am continually reading "I run X without this problem" as proof that the system in X solved the problem, if I believed that line of reasoning I would also have to conclude that the system presented in 3.0 solved the problem.

Clearly, this is untrue. It therefore follows that "Person Y can run System X without Problem Z" is not evidence that System X solves Problem Z.

Moreover, if "Person Y can run System X without Problem Z" and "Person A cannot run System X without Problem Z", then I conclude that it is likely that the problem does not exist because of System X, but rather because of some difference as to the way Person Y and Person A approach the use of System X.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I have to wonder how you will react to 4e if it is no fun for you or a number of your players to constantly run 1 hour long battles which use only a couple of resources and whose ending is a foregone conclusion?
> 
> This is a point that I have been trying to make for a very, very long time.



I know the point you are trying to make:  That if you don't use any resources at all, then the battle was boring.  Since everyone's powers were all per encounter that means that all battles that don't dip into people's daily resources will be boring.  Since all battles are boring, you must increase the difficulty of encounters to the point where each one will use up daily resources.  And then groups will rest to get them back after every encounter, thus creating the same situation.

What I'm trying to say is that in the "weak" encounters that one throws up against a party as part of the resource attrition/per day model tend to use up mostly hitpoints/cleric spells of the party rather than any other resource.

So, you fight a battle where the wizard doesn't need to cast spells since it's too easy to waste them but the fighter gets hit for 30 damage before you take out the enemy.  The cleric heals the damage and the party continues.  The party fights another battle that's too easy to waste wizard spells on and the fighter takes some damage and gets healed, then repeat.  The battles aren't fun for anyone except the fighter and maybe rogue as they are the only ones doing anything of note in the combat.  The cleric sits there and heals, the wizard either casts some spells because he's bored or uses a crossbow to miss.

It's not a matter of the battle being a forgone conclusion.  Most are.  I don't see a lot of DMs hoping that the party will lose the encounter, so they purposefully use enemies the party will defeat.

It's a matter of how interesting the tactics during the battle are and how much fun is had while trying to beat them.  This is created by having a variety of enemies in the came encounter with varying abilities which work together in an interesting environment rather than using resource attrition to decide when it's the best time for the wizard to actually cast spells.


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am currently running...



I'm only repeating myself because you keep missing the point.

So what problems do you have with M&M's model (with its few resources and foregone conclusions)? Why doesn't it work? That's what you should be trying to demonstrate.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I know the point you are trying to make:  That if you don't use any resources at all, then the battle was boring.




Not exactly, because my point is not absolute.  It relies upon provisos.  

My point requires that the player(s) and/or DM feel that, to be exciting, an encounter must be meaningful outside the context of the encounter itself.  That is to say, while in many cases, if you ask the question "What makes an encounter exciting?" designers, DMs, and players will look _within the encounter itself_ and make claims that an exciting encounter is one which has cool locations, cool actions, and real difficulty.  And this is true.

However, DDM can have cool locations, cool actions, and real difficulty, and a series of DDM battles is not the same as a role-playing game.  It may be fun, but players do not ascribe the same meaning to these battles because they have no context or consequences outside of the battles themselves.

Removing resourse attrition removes a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter.  Reducing the affect of resource attrition reduces a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter.  This ought to be self-evident.

If you accept that context or consequences outside of the battles themselves is a part of what makes combat encounters exciting, it should therefore follow that reducing anything that reduces a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter is also going to reduce the excitement of that encounter.

Obviously, you can increase other factors to increase the excitement of that encounter, but when the most obvious factor is the difficulty of the encounter itself, and you have already narrowed the level of difficulty possible without resulting in a TPK, you will be hard pressed indeed to raise the stakes successfully in this way.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> I'm only repeating myself because you keep missing the point.




Likewise.   



> So what problems do you have with M&M's model (with its few resources and foregone conclusions)? Why doesn't it work? That's what you should be trying to demonstrate.




Answered upthread, long long ago.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am currently running a heavily modified version of 3.x with per-day and per-encounter abilities. I was previously running a lightly modified version of 3.0. Under neither of these systems did I experience the 15-minute adventuring day problem for the simple reason that, when the characters decided to rest, the world went on.
> 
> But I would be foolish to claim that, because I didn't have a "15-minute adventuring day" problem, that the problem didn't exist. Nor is my ability to easily run games without this problem in 3.0 evidence that 3.0 solves this problem. While I am continually reading "I run X without this problem" as proof that the system in X solved the problem, if I believed that line of reasoning I would also have to conclude that the system presented in 3.0 solved the problem.
> 
> Clearly, this is untrue. It therefore follows that "Person Y can run System X without Problem Z" is not evidence that System X solves Problem Z.
> 
> Moreover, if "Person Y can run System X without Problem Z" and "Person A cannot run System X without Problem Z", then I conclude that it is likely that the problem does not exist because of System X, but rather because of some difference as to the way Person Y and Person A approach the use of System X.



But this really doesn't follow. For example, I'm in charge of digital audio recording lectures in class. Sometimes, though, the microphone cuts out and stops recording on the computer. It's pretty easy for me to stroll on up and jiggle the cord until the computer recognizes it again. I have no problem doing this. But a lot of the people who volunteer to help with recording are baffled by this. All the cords look the same, and they just want to know why we can't get a new cord.

Now there is something to be said for the different ways we use the recording system. I know more about computer hardware and this computer in particular that I can fix the microphone, whereas many of my classmates do not. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the source of the problem for many other students could be resolved if IST would just get us a new cord.

The problems we're seeing are similar. Sure, there are plenty of ways a group can short-cut around the problems and keep the game fun by using different playstyles. You described some of these patches earlier, RC, when you replied to pemerton that a party could be enabled to go on cleanup duty after slaying the BBEG by having the BBEG's death provide them with the healing potions and disposeable resources they need to do the job. (I personally think this is a little contrived, but that is irrelevant here.) But just because people know a system well enough to avoid pitfalls experienced by others doesn't mean that there are no problems with the system. Certainly different approaches to the system can be more or less successful depending on the system, but that doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist.

In summary, just because we know how to side-step the 15-minute adventuring day and provide supplimentary resources necessary to keep the game going doesn't mean that the 15-minute adventuring day problem and limited resources aren't necessarily a problem. It's like the software guys blaming the users for bugs. Sure, it could be someone attempting to play Minesweeper in Quicken, but it might also be someone trying to balance their checkbook and Quicken keeps crashing on them.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Removing resourse attrition removes a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter.  Reducing the affect of resource attrition reduces a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter.  This ought to be self-evident.
> 
> If you accept that context or consequences outside of the battles themselves is a part of what makes combat encounters exciting, it should therefore follow that reducing anything that reduces a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter is also going to reduce the excitement of that encounter.
> 
> Obviously, you can increase other factors to increase the excitement of that encounter, but when the most obvious factor is the difficulty of the encounter itself, and you have already narrowed the level of difficulty possible without resulting in a TPK, you will be hard pressed indeed to raise the stakes successfully in this way.



And I'm more than willing to dump that system in exchange for one that allows for more freedom of pacing and gaming. There is plenty of significance which can be assigned to an encounter within the context of the world itself if the PCs' victory/defeat has an impact on the rest of the world, as I described on my first post in the thread. I don't need or want a system that encourages the players to play a game closer to Boy Scout Camping Adventure than Heroic D&D Fantasy to assign meaning.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> But this really doesn't follow.




Sure it does.  In your example, it is the interaction between users and systems that needs to be looked at to see what is happening, and it might mean that the cord needs to be replaced.  However, until you look at what is different between your use of the system and the other person's use of the system (i.e., the interaction between System X and Persons Y and A), you are unlikely to know why the system fails the other guy.

Moreover, if you assume that the problem is caused by some part of the system other than the one you manipulate to resolve the problem yourself (jiggle the wire; give reasons not to rest) then it seems unlikely that what you propose as a solution will work (change the microphone; give more resources).



> In summary, just because we know how to side-step the 15-minute adventuring day and provide supplimentary resources necessary to keep the game going doesn't mean that the 15-minute adventuring day problem and limited resources aren't necessarily a problem. It's like the software guys blaming the users for bugs. Sure, it could be someone attempting to play Minesweeper in Quicken, but it might also be someone trying to balance their checkbook and Quicken keeps crashing on them.




Sounds an awful lot like:

But I would be foolish to claim that, because I didn't have a "15-minute adventuring day" problem, that the problem didn't exist. Nor is my ability to easily run games without this problem in 3.0 evidence that 3.0 solves this problem. While I am continually reading "I run X without this problem" as proof that the system in X solved the problem, if I believed that line of reasoning I would also have to conclude that the system presented in 3.0 solved the problem.​

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And I'm more than willing to dump that system in exchange for one that allows for more freedom of pacing and gaming.




Granted.  But I am not arguing that this is something you are unwilling to do.  I am arguing that, if you are having the 15-minute adventuring day problem with 3.X, you will probably have it with 4.0, _if and only if_ the measures mentioned on Wyatt's blog are the only "solution" to this problem presented by the new ruleset.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Granted.  But I am not arguing that this is something you are unwilling to do.  I am arguing that, if you are having the 15-minute adventuring day problem with 3.X, you will probably have it with 4.0, _if and only if_ the measures mentioned on Wyatt's blog are the only "solution" to this problem presented by the new ruleset.
> 
> RC



I think that very much depends on what your threshold for fatigue is.

For most groups, they'll rest after their bread and butter resources are running low (cure criticals, mid-level spells, etc.). If your bread and butter resources are per-encounter, and only your big guns are per-day, then the 15-minute adventuring day is likely to go away. PCs might not always go into a fight at full health, or occassionally down one of their big guns, but they'll never be without their bread and butter abilities. The system will better support the heroic ideal of sallying forth even in the face of great danger, even if it starts to move away from the old Gygaxian expert dungeoneer ideal (which to me isn't terribly heroic).

Alternatively, if your group spikes the door after every fight because the wizard went nova or because you're terrified of the prospect of going into battle down three cure criticals, then this problem may be reduced, but not eliminated. The only way to eliminate this problem is to eliminate per-day resources (which doesn't sound like it'll be the case).

Or if you're someone who adores the old Gygaxian expert dungeoneer, carefully rationing everything and taking every step with great care, knowing that your character's survival through a difficult exploration is the biggest source of satisfaction, you'll probably be unhappy to lose out on an aspect of the game you used to shine at.

In this instance, it is indeed different reactions of different users to a common problem. Some people overreact ("Oh God, Quicken crashed on me! Next time, I'll take everything one click at a time and save at every keystroke!"), some find their work inhibited by it, but keep on working ("Okay, I'll just save more often. It's better than nothing."), and others embrace it ("Aha! Once again, I've balanced my checkbook before Quicken could crash! Victory is mine!").

For D&D, the common problem is one of limited resources in attrition, a restriction which inhibits different styles of gameplay. For some people, the problem is a boon, because the restriction fits their gameplay style oh so well. For others, though, the restriction makes it more difficult to rationalize mechanically-inspired actions (resting at 9:15 because the wizard ran out of fireballs) in light of the versimilitude of the game-world itself or even just the genre (where heroes may be forced to rest and recover because of their wounds or because the wizard's magic has left him physically and emotionally exhausted).


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I think that very much depends on what your threshold for fatigue is.




Exactly.  And threshold for fatigue is based very much on rules set.  It is based very strongly, specifically, on two factors:

(1)  How much is my current fatigue liable to harm me, and

(2)  How much is resting liable to harm me.

Or, as I put it much earlier, the 15-minute adventuring day problem arises from players _not_ asking themselves, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?"

Now, I say that the player who does this does not ask himself "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?" does not do so because the game rewards him for not doing so. Using the big gun at the first hint of trouble increases his chance of survival. The only cost to him is that he has to rest -- i.e., accept that his character adventures for 15 minutes before resting to recover and reset. This is an acceptable (if not desireable) exchange for this player, or he would not do it.

If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory. 



> For most groups, they'll rest after their bread and butter resources are running low (cure criticals, mid-level spells, etc.). If your bread and butter resources are per-encounter, and only your big guns are per-day, then the 15-minute adventuring day is likely to go away.




If the above was true, and was the only real consideration, then a system with fewer bread-and-butter resources would cause those resources to be used more quickly, and consequently  be more likely to cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem.

IOW, if this was true, the 15-minute adventuring day problem would be an artifact of earlier editions, that was made less common by 3e. This is not my experience, or the experience of anyone that I know. I have played D&D since Christmas day 1979, with the Blue Box set, with hundreds of people in several states, and in two countries. In no case, whether I or another was DMing, have I ever heard of the "15-minute adventuring day" problem, or simular, until 3.0.

I cannot help but conclude that "If you have more bread-and-butter resources, you will not use up your bread-and-butter resources as quickly, and consequently will not cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem" cannot, in general, be true.



> Alternatively, if your group spikes the door after every fight because the wizard went nova or because you're terrified of the prospect of going into battle down three cure criticals, then this problem may be reduced, but not eliminated. The only way to eliminate this problem is to eliminate per-day resources (which doesn't sound like it'll be the case).




If the above was true, and was the only real consideration, then a system with fewer per-day resources, and no magical per-encounter resources, would cause those resources to be used more quickly, and consequently  be more likely to cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem.

IOW, if this was true, the 15-minute adventuring day problem would be an artifact of earlier editions, that was made less common by 3e. This is not my experience, or the experience of anyone that I know. I have played D&D since Christmas day 1979, with the Blue Box set, with hundreds of people in several states, and in two countries. In no case, whether I or another was DMing, have I ever heard of the "15-minute adventuring day" problem, or simular, until 3.0.

I cannot help but conclude that, again, your reasoning here cannot, in general, be true. I do, however, believe that it is what WotC believes to be true.



> Or if you're someone who adores the old Gygaxian expert dungeoneer, carefully rationing everything and taking every step with great care, knowing that your character's survival through a difficult exploration is the biggest source of satisfaction, you'll probably be unhappy to lose out on an aspect of the game you used to shine at.




This I can agree with.



RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Exactly.  And threshold for fatigue is based very much on rules set.  It is based very strongly, specifically, on two factors:
> 
> (1)  How much is my current fatigue liable to harm me, and
> 
> (2)  How much is resting liable to harm me.
> 
> Or, as I put it much earlier, the 15-minute adventuring day problem arises from players _not_ asking themselves, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?"
> 
> Now, I say that the player who does this does not ask himself "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?" does not do so because the game rewards him for not doing so. Using the big gun at the first hint of trouble increases his chance of survival. The only cost to him is that he has to rest -- i.e., accept that his character adventures for 15 minutes before resting to recover and reset. This is an acceptable (if not desireable) exchange for this player, or he would not do it.
> 
> If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.



That is indeed a relatively accurate summary of the nova player's point of view.



> If the above was true, and was the only real consideration, then a system with fewer bread-and-butter resources would cause those resources to be used more quickly, and consequently  be more likely to cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem.
> 
> IOW, if this was true, the 15-minute adventuring day problem would be an artifact of earlier editions, that was made less common by 3e. This is not my experience, or the experience of anyone that I know. I have played D&D since Christmas day 1979, with the Blue Box set, with hundreds of people in several states, and in two countries. In no case, whether I or another was DMing, have I ever heard of the "15-minute adventuring day" problem, or simular, until 3.0.
> 
> I cannot help but conclude that "If you have more bread-and-butter resources, you will not use up your bread-and-butter resources as quickly, and consequently will not cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem" cannot, in general, be true.
> 
> If the above was true, and was the only real consideration, then a system with fewer per-day resources, and no magical per-encounter resources, would cause those resources to be used more quickly, and consequently  be more likely to cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem.
> 
> IOW, if this was true, the 15-minute adventuring day problem would be an artifact of earlier editions, that was made less common by 3e. This is not my experience, or the experience of anyone that I know. I have played D&D since Christmas day 1979, with the Blue Box set, with hundreds of people in several states, and in two countries. In no case, whether I or another was DMing, have I ever heard of the "15-minute adventuring day" problem, or simular, until 3.0.
> 
> I cannot help but conclude that, again, your reasoning here cannot, in general, be true. I do, however, believe that it is what WotC believes to be true.



In my experience, this is the main cause of PC resting. Most players are paranoid about expending resources which they percieve as critically limited. For example, if you can only use one 5th level spell, most players will likely guard that jealously, just because they might need it later (which is a seperate issue). However, most players won't lead with their biggest attacks against a foe they believe is an average threat. Those are too valuable and scarce. Most PCs tend to lead with more mediocre (but plentiful) resources to gauge their opponent.

For example, even if I have only one 5th level spell, I probably won't mind pitching out a 3rd level spell and see if that works. That is a less critically limited resource, so the players are less likely to be squeamish about spending one. The player will then wait to see how the enemy reacts (how injured he gets, whether or not he saves, what he does on his turn in reaction to the attack), and adjust accordingly for the next resource expenditure. So if the spell absolutely evaporates the enemy, then the wizard might just back off and let the fighter handle it. If it does an expected average damage, he might stick to it. Or if the enemy laughs it off and then charges, the wizard might switch things up and use a higher-level spell, knowing he'll need more resources to succeed.

You may not have heard of the problem before. Indeed, I haven't ever heard it called by this name until just this past month. But I remember all too vividly my few games with old Gygaxian expert dungeoneers in a Rules Cyclopedia game where we staked the door if a PC so much as broke a nail to rest. It certainly existed in old-school games.

Though honestly, exchanging annecdotes won't get us anywhere. We'd need more hard evidence, like a survey of casters to see which spells are cast first and more often. I can see that others upthread have similar experiences to mine, but a wider sample-size would be needed.



> This I can agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> RC



We agree! Alert the media


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> It came across as one, but I thank you for your reply. I still think that no encounter is meaningful out-of-context, and neither do I think that putting an encounter into the context of the world as a whole means that you're being heavy handed.




"Context", in the "context" of what we were talking about earlier took on a more narrow definition of that part of the encounter design that was supposed to make an encounter interesting when you remove the threat of death from an encounter under a per-encounter resource system.  I don't know if "meaningful" is the same thing as "interesting" in what you're saying here, to me, they are slightly different things.  An encounter can be interesting because of the tactical challenges it poses, without the encounter having to be meaningful to the overall campaign.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Can it mean that? Certainly. _"And once again, you swoop in to save the princess just as the dragon is about to eat her!" "What is that, like, the tenth time?" "Eleventh, by my count." "You two! Shaddup and listen to my story or both of your PCs are getting the plague!"_
> 
> However, the other extreme is even more distatesful. The idea of just going from room to room in a dungeon where nothing that happened in the other room matters beyond the spells I cast and the hit points I lost and the loot I collected? *shudder* And yes, I'm fully aware that this is an extreme and I'm 99.99% sure that this isn't what you're advocating.




It's probably too big of a topic to discuss, but I don't actually find these two concepts to be polar opposites, nor do they even lie on the same spectrum IMO.  I don't feel that giving "meaning" to an encounter (so as to avoid your second scenario) must necessarily lead you to a more contrived situation.  Perhaps my definition of "meaning" here is different than yours, but I don't particularly feel that placing the princess in immediate peril of being eaten for purposes of making an encounter exciting does anything in terms of making the encounter more meaningful to the overall campaign.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> No, I'm not. I was just trying to recieve clarification on what you were saying there. I honestly don't know what you mean when you're talking about "the more contrived exampels of "how you keep the party moving" in an all per-encounter design."?




Making sure that the princess is unconditionally 2 rounds from being eaten in order to assure that the party tackles the battle with the dragon then and there is an example of "keeping the party moving" in an all per-encounter design (it would also work in the per-day situation).


----------



## gizmo33

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I haven't seen anything that could explain to me why those aren't two valid points.




You mean you didn't read all 1000+ posts on this thread!?      I personally have responded to them and so have others.  I'll perhaps summarize what I've already said at a later time but you have some more interesting stuff here so I'll get to that first.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I was running a party through RTTToEE and then Castle Maure afterwards.  RTTToEE has built in options for "What happens if the PCs leave for a week and then come back.  However, at low levels they were tedious and lame.




And this, to me, is the beginning and end of the problem.  It's as if you're concluding that dungeons are boring because you purchased a dungeon but all it was was 20 rooms each filled with a few faceless, uninteresting mooks.  That's not a condemnation of the dungeon concept, it's just a poorly designed one.

Now I'm not exactly sure I'd say RTTToEE is "poorly designed", but I think it's pretty obvious that the time dimension of the dungeon wasn't sufficiently planned for.  I don't know if that was your responsibility or Monte Cook's, but IMO it's someone's.  A "dungeon" really should be a dynamic place, and obviously the more of a "time" dimension there is, the more there needs to be a design in this area.  This is actually one of the things I *want* in the game, because by going to a per-encounter resource to make sure that the dungeon is reduced to smoking rubble in an hour, the DM is being denied to opportunity to make his campaign world more of a living, breathing place.  

By simply responding to PC forays by restocking the dungeon with replacement mooks, that's basically equivalent, in the time dimension, with stocking each room with the same monster in the space dimension.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> So, then, we'd spend one session fighting all of the battles we fought two sessions ago, run out of time, then have the party continue to actually get further into the dungeon on the following session.




Not only (I agree) is this boring, but it's also unrealistic.  If I'm a terminator I can't just walk into my local police station, kill a bunch of them, and then sit around and do the same thing next week.  Granted, this is a secret cult (I don't know much about RTTToEE but I do know the original and I'm assuming their similar) but if it's like ToEE they have their tentacles in the surrounding area and would take a great interest in persons who were killing their troops.  Seems insane not to do so unless their troops are getting wacked on a weekly basis by all sorts of people - in which case the identities of those people would be very relevant to making the dungeon dynamic and interesting (another subject).



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Which got boring for me as a DM.  I wanted to get to the cooler part of the adventure instead of rolling the same 12 crossbow shots from the entrance guards again.




Absolutely.  I think you really have to step in as a DM here and insist that your NPCs act like thinking people (not even smart ones).  Even stupid people don't do the same thing over and over again when it's what got the last bunch killed.  Traps, trained creatures, abandoning and walling off the area (forcing the PCs to look elsewhere) are all simple-minded responses.  Poor morale among troops who have to listen to stories of massacres every week would inspire the leadership to deal with this situation.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> So, I gave up allowing the temple to recruit new people so that we'd get somewhere.  I figured they'd run out of possible candidates after a while.




That makes sense given the circumstances.  So here they are, unable to replace their troops and they're still just sitting down in the dungeon, twiddling their thumbs at their particular encounter area?



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Then, the party realized this and started resting in the dungeon in areas they'd already cleared out, sealing the doors so no one would bother them.  When they realized they could do this and get away with it, they started resting more often and more often.




They're foes were stymied by a door!?  Again, I don't know the module but siege techniques aren't rocket science and they're not all that expensive.  A few goblin slaves with pick-axes, and maybe setting traps at the door when the PCs come out could do the trick.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> There really were no story concerns except that the PCs knew that the temple was up to something big and they needed to stop it.




But there could have been story concerns!  New recruits are a new opportunity for PCs to get information - a new recruit can be from a certain area where the temple has just established an outpost.  The dynamic nature of a realistic environment would introduce new elements to the story.  



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> But there was no urgency in the PCs because they were fairly certain that I wouldn't let the temple succeed before they got to the end of the dungeon.




This almost speaks for itself.  A player's sense of certainty is pretty easy to fix.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Once they got high enough level to teleport, I didn't have to worry about restocking the dungeon at all anymore or whether or not someone would discover them while sleeping.  They'd simply teleport out as soon as they felt they had used enough resources or they had enough treasure and teleport in the next day, fully rested.  Since there were no story concerns and no consequences to resting, they did it whenever they wanted.




Teleport is a big, unmitigated problem in 3E.  There are plenty of theoretical spells and other magical counter-measures that could be available to opponents who are high enough level to be a challenge to PCs who can cast teleport.  In any case, this is just a higher level version of what was going on with the low-level/mook situation - if you're a high level NPC whose house is being broken into every week you're going to find a way to fix the problem.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The only REAL concern was it didn't seem very "realistic" for them to be exiting the dungeon after every battle just because they could.  It seemed like they should WANT to push on, to reach the leaders of the temple and wipe out the den of evil as soon as they could before their plan could be unleashed.




Why?  They know instinctively that it's not going to happen.  The PCs know instinctively that their actions (or lack thereof) actually have no bearing on what happens in the world.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Also, resting does bypass the resource attrition game.




How am I not being clear about this?  Resting is part of the resource attrition game.  The "game" wouldn't be a game if attrition were always in the negative direction.  There's nothing inevitable about resource attrition, and it's part of the game for PCs to manage it.  IMO You need to understand that their successes in this area are not a bad thing, any more than when they kill a monster instead of getting killed by it.  It's part of the game.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> "Will I need my fireball against the BBEG?" is a
> different question than "Will I have enough spells left to survive against the BBEG?"




I don't see the difference.  Assuming the fireball is not a relevant factor in determining whether you would succeed against the BBEG, then why ask the question in the first place?



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Running out of any one spell or spell level may not be enough reason to rest, but there reaches a critical point where you CANNOT continue with the resources you have.  I want to remove this limit.




Yes, I think I understand clearly that this is what you want.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> But as was pointed out previously, if you fight the 3 "uninteresting" battles, end up with not enough resources to continue, then you either risk death by resting or death by continuing on.  You don't have enough resources for another battle one way or another.




They have enough resources to fight a single kobold.  They have enough resources to avoid a battle.  You also have one-time resources, like wands and potions.  The situation is more complicated IMO than you're describing here.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It's just that unless you push the PCs forward, that they can find a solution to 90% of all consequences to resting:  Leave the dungeon and come back tomorrow or spike the door shut are the two biggest and easiest(I've also seen rope tricks, illusions and silence spells, and any number of other adventurer tricks).




The PCs have a time machine?  A day is a long time.  Go into some crazy, violent person's house, then lock yourself in a room and spike it shut, wait an entire day and then come out (if you make it that far - because I'm pretty sure you're average crazy person knows how to deal with someone in a locked room).  There are just so many obvious problems with this scenario that I don't know where to begin. 



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It IS possible to push a party to continue with story reasons, but that almost always ends up in a TPK.  After all, if a party is stuck in a situation where they have to fight the BBEG with almost no resources or rest and have the BBEG kill the kidnapped villager, then they HAVE to continue if they want to be the heroes.  Forcing a party to fight a battle they can't handle will often cause a TPK.




This is a gaming style issue.  I'm not saying anything about *forcing* the PCs to fight a battle they can't handle.  I could break down the details of how I would run something like ToEE but it's too long for this post.


----------



## pemerton

Gizmo33, I have a sense that in your reply at post #1192 you may have missed my point (perhaps my post obscured it).

What I was trying to say is this: if an encounter becomes win/lose _not_ because the probabilities and die rolls make it such (ie it is not like a 10th lvl Fighter vs a Stone Giant), but rather because skilled tactical play is required to make the probabilities come out PC-friendly, then it is not very different from a resource attrition game, where a given encounter (#_N_) may not pose a very big risk to the party (eg 10th lvl PC vs kobolds) but if poorly handled can deplete resources which result in the party facing risks later on (encounter #_N_+1).

In particular, you said:



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> *If* encounter N+1 is at a certain difficulty level then the N+1 encounter is not much different than the per-encounter situation.  But that's one of my points, because there is no reason the N+1 encounter has to be like anything, whereas in order to make encounters interesting in a per-encounter resource situation that very encounter must be the one posing the risk of death.



My point is that, if bad play never leads to a risk of death in the attrition game - ie if every encounter is one which, however poorly the players have managed their resources, they can succeed at - then the attrition game will also be mechanically meaningless. Assuming that non-mechanical thresholds of significance are put to one side for the moment, for the attrition game to be of interest there must be consequences to the players of consuming resources, and I don't see what else those consequences would be but the chance of losing (ie, in the last analysis, PCs dying in) an encounter.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> In a per-day design, the looming N+1, N+2, etc. encounter that adds the tension and sense of vulnerability.



But if that sense of vulnerability never actualises - if there are never encounters which are dangerous to take on in a resource-depleted state - then the tension will eventually evaporate. And if there are such encounters, then it turns out that poor play earlier on makes the PCs vulnerable to death.

So, as I said, it seems to me that the only crucial difference, in this respect, between per-encounter and pure per-day, is that per-encounter loads all this unfolding of the vulnerability, and the potentially fatal consequences for the PCs of poor choices by their players, into a single encounter rather than stretching it over multiple encounters. I don't see why this is generically a bad thing (it is of course a different thing - the skill of good play changes, from resource management to what I have been calling "tactical decision making" - but I see this as an issue more of taste than of quality).



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> So the timeframe for discovering mistakes is the encounter itself



Yes.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if that's meant to be a good thing



As I said, I think it's a different thing. I think it makes for a game that's plausibly enjoyable to a wide audience (eg I can envisage me an my fellow players enjoying it, and I have no reason to think we're terribly unrepresentative). I wouldn't expect it to appeal to all gamers.  I expect that WoTC have done market research to try and gauge the tastes of RPGers.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> in the per-day design, the options you have for mitigating the difficulty level of the N+1 are much greater than those you could have for a per-encounter design.  Multiple weak cures, for instance, can actually help in the per-day design but are just too expensive to use in a per-encounter situation where every round counts.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm there's a much higher tolerance for mistakes in the per-encounter design, because while in the operational game a mistake costing me 10 hitpoints is significant, in the per-encounter design it's meaningless.



I'm not entirely sure if your first and second examples point in the same direction. You seem to be saying both that operational play allows for mitigation of mistakes, and that per-encounter is more tolerant of mistakes. I don't understand what you mean - these claims seem to me to be in tension.

Turning to the particular issue of healing, it seems to me that in the per-encounter game a 10 hitpoint mistake might well be fatal if healing can't be brought to bear, whereas (as you note in your first example) in an operational game minor cures can handle it easily.

As far as healing goes, I suspect that the designers will find ways to compensate for the phenomenon you note in your first example eg via abilities which let a Cleric simultaneously attack and rally (ie heal). These options will be different. I'm not enough of a designer to say that they will obviously be adequate. But nor am I inclined to believe that they will obviously be inferior to the possibilities that operational play allows for.


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> there are often consequences for resting, and thus the events that lead up to you being forced to rest (the three "uninteresting" battles) are actually very interesting to players that aren't naive/uninterested about resource issues in the game.  Granted, if resource issues aren't a party of the playing style then this is probably the case.  But if they are, then weathering the first three encounters with enough resources intact that you can continue with the adventure is an important part of the challenge of those three encounters.



I think that the sort of play you have just describe is the sort of play that 4e is deliberately trying to move away from.

If the PCs cannot continue with the adventure, an obvious possibility is that the _players_ do not have anything more to do that evening that is interesting - instead they have to play out a retreat, a camp, re-equipping, rememorise spells, possibly resolve some wandering monster encounters that may well be (from the point of view of the plot or theme of the game) largely meaningless.

For a lot of people whose gaming time is limited, that is not how they want to spend their one evening a fortnight. The design challenge, if one wants to accomodate such players, then becomes one of delivering a game which is mechanically interesting, but is not prone to this sort of "bogging down" if play is poor. In my view that is a difficult design specification, and I have no idea if 4e will satisfy it. But I can see why the designers regard the introduction of per-encounter abilities as one of the steps - because it loads the mechanical challenges _into_ the encounter, which is (presumably, if the GM is doing his or her part) relevant to plot and theme.

There are still questions unanswered - what happens, for example, if a PC dies in an encounter? But operational designs also have to deal with this problem - but they introduce a whole lot of other issues as well, like the playing out of the retreat and the wandering monsters, which per-encounter abilities allow to be circumvented.

Again, whether this shift in design priorities is a good or a bad thing is a different question. My point is that I think it is rational to believe that introducing per-encounter abilities into the mix will support such a shift.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The alternative, with an "all-per-encounter" resource design is that the PCs just keep fighting until everything else is dead or they're dead.



That is correct, assuming that the "victory conditions" are purely  military. As I've said in earlier posts, per-encounter design I think is more attractive when non-mechanical thresholds of significance are in play.


----------



## pemerton

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> If this same party was able to:
> A. Fight a battle where they had to use a significant number of resources
> B. Felt like the battle might turn against them if they didn't try hard enough
> C. Got all their resources back afterwards
> 
> I think it would be a lot of fun.



Agreed that this is a sensible design goal for a fantasy RPG.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I have to wonder how you will react to 4e if it is no fun for you or a number of your players to constantly run 1 hour long battles which use only a couple of resources and whose ending is a foregone conclusion?






			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I know the point you are trying to make:  That if you don't use any resources at all, then the battle was boring.  Since everyone's powers were all per encounter that means that all battles that don't dip into people's daily resources will be boring.  Since all battles are boring, you must increase the difficulty of encounters to the point where each one will use up daily resources.  And then groups will rest to get them back after every encounter, thus creating the same situation.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that in the "weak" encounters that one throws up against a party as part of the resource attrition/per day model tend to use up mostly hitpoints/cleric spells of the party rather than any other resource.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The battles aren't fun for anyone except the fighter and maybe rogue as they are the only ones doing anything of note in the combat.  The cleric sits there and heals, the wizard either casts some spells because he's bored or uses a crossbow to miss.
> 
> It's not a matter of the battle being a forgone conclusion.  Most are.  I don't see a lot of DMs hoping that the party will lose the encounter, so they purposefully use enemies the party will defeat.
> 
> It's a matter of how interesting the tactics during the battle are and how much fun is had while trying to beat them.  This is created by having a variety of enemies in the came encounter with varying abilities which work together in an interesting environment rather than using resource attrition to decide when it's the best time for the wizard to actually cast spells.



Again agreed. I have been trying to make this point for about 15 pages - apparently without much success . . .



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> My point requires that the player(s) and/or DM feel that, to be exciting, an encounter must be meaningful outside the context of the encounter itself.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Removing resourse attrition removes a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter.  Reducing the affect of resource attrition reduces a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you accept that context or consequences outside of the battles themselves is a part of what makes combat encounters exciting, it should therefore follow that reducing anything that reduces a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter is also going to reduce the excitement of that encounter.
> 
> Obviously, you can increase other factors to increase the excitement of that encounter, but when the most obvious factor is the difficulty of the encounter itself, and you have already narrowed the level of difficulty possible without resulting in a TPK, you will be hard pressed indeed to raise the stakes successfully in this way.



I suspect that for many players of RPGs, including of D&D, the most interesting context of consequence for an encounter outside of the encounter is _not_ its resource impact, but its plot or thematic impact. Per-encounter resources are apt to facilitate the use of such non-mechanical thresholds of signficance.

They also facilitate exploration of certain themes or tropes _within the context of an encounter_, by allowing a greater variety of resources to be deployed in more interesting ways.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And I'm more than willing to dump that system in exchange for one that allows for more freedom of pacing and gaming.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't need or want a system that encourages the players to play a game closer to Boy Scout Camping Adventure than Heroic D&D Fantasy to assign meaning.
> 
> <cut to subsequent post>
> The system will better support the heroic ideal of sallying forth even in the face of great danger, even if it starts to move away from the old Gygaxian expert dungeoneer ideal (which to me isn't terribly heroic).



Agreed.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> the 15-minute adventuring day problem arises from players _not_ asking themselves, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?"



And per-encounter resources, by offering more choices that will affect the encounter, and more complexity in encounter resolution, are intended to cause this question to be asked.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> the 15-minute adventuring day problem would be an artifact of earlier editions, that was made less common by 3e. This is not my experience, or the experience of anyone that I know. I have played D&D since Christmas day 1979, with the Blue Box set, with hundreds of people in several states, and in two countries. In no case, whether I or another was DMing, have I ever heard of the "15-minute adventuring day" problem, or simular, until 3.0.



When I used to play AD&D the 15-minute day was common. It is also very common in Rolemaster (in which the relevant per-day resources are Power Points).

Of course, for a certain sort of play - namely, what 1st AD&D calls "good play", but which (as Jackelope King has identified) is not everyone's idea of what they want from a game - it is not a _problem_, and that is why you may not have heard it referred to as such.


----------



## Hussar

RC said:
			
		

> If the above was true, and was the only real consideration, then a system with fewer per-day resources, and no magical per-encounter resources, would cause those resources to be used more quickly, and consequently be more likely to cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem.
> 
> IOW, if this was true, the 15-minute adventuring day problem would be an artifact of earlier editions, that was made less common by 3e. This is not my experience, or the experience of anyone that I know. I have played D&D since Christmas day 1979, with the Blue Box set, with hundreds of people in several states, and in two countries. In no case, whether I or another was DMing, have I ever heard of the "15-minute adventuring day" problem, or simular, until 3.0.
> 
> I cannot help but conclude that, again, your reasoning here cannot, in general, be true. I do, however, believe that it is what WotC believes to be true.




Really?  Not one person ever complained about that?  Good grief, we did it all the time.  The end of our adventuring day was always when the cleric announced that he had spent his last cure light wounds.  Didn't matter what was going on, we rested (assuming we could).  

If that meant we rested after the first fight of the day, yup, it happened.  If you continued to adventure after you cleric ran out of cure spells (remembering that there were no curing spells of 2nd or 3rd level, until your cleric hit 7th level you were using his 3-5 cure light wounds), why didn't you die a lot?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really?  Not one person ever complained about that?  Good grief, we did it all the time.  The end of our adventuring day was always when the cleric announced that he had spent his last cure light wounds.  Didn't matter what was going on, we rested (assuming we could).




Please note that "assuming we could" there.  If your DM followed the wandering monster guidelines in the DMG, this was not necessarily a good assumption to make.  And, as my point is, it is _assigning a cost to resting_ that prevents the 15-minute adventuring day problem, I suppose that means you agree with me on this point?


RC


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, as my point is, it is _assigning a cost to resting_ that prevents the 15-minute adventuring day problem ...




Or, conversely, lowering the cost of not resting. Which is the approach that use of per-encounter abilities takes.


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> Or, conversely, lowering the cost of not resting. Which is the approach that use of per-encounter abilities takes.





Lowering the benefit of resting can help as long as it is lowered beyond the cost threshold of resting.  If the cost of resting is 0, the benefit must also be 0 to resolve the problem.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Lowering the benefit of resting can help as long as it is lowered beyond the cost threshold of resting.  If the cost of resting is 0, the benefit must also be 0 to resolve the problem.
> 
> 
> RC



I am not sure that lowering the cost of _not_ resting is the same as lowering the benefit of resting.

It's a question of ratios, I guess. If not resting means I have 80 % resources less, but resting means I have full resources, the ratio is too much in favour of resting. The drawbacks must be pretty high to not rest (e.g. you are certain a wandering monster will attack and kill you, while pressing on has less risks; or you know the villain will not conveniently stop his ritual of utter destruction)
If the ratio is just 20 % to 100 %, even lesser drawback can balance the scale towards not resting. Reaching from "It feel's stupid to rest just because I expended my Overpowered Fireball  and my Mass Fly spell already, let's head on" over "we still have the element of suprise if we don't retreat now" or "the caravan we're supposed to be guarding should move on" to "if we finish this quickly, we can concentrate on proving that the stupid mayor was behind the abductions, who knows what he is doing in the mean time?"


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Lowering the benefit of resting can help as long as it is lowered beyond the cost threshold of resting.  If the cost of resting is 0, the benefit must also be 0 to resolve the problem.
> 
> 
> RC



 As the good Archchancellor noted above, that really doesn't relate to my point. And personally, I think lowering the cost of not resting is mechanically much easier to do, which may explain why WotC is taking the approach they seem to be in 4e with unlimited or "per encounter" abilities.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I am not sure that lowering the cost of _not_ resting is the same as lowering the benefit of resting.
> 
> It's a question of ratios, I guess.




Of course it is.

When you look from 1e or 2e to 3.X, it is clear that each character got more in terms of resources than before.  Yet, overall, resource attrition became more of a problem.  Why?  Because the 3.X monster was capable of using up more of your resources in a given encounter if it was capable of using any of your resources at all.

In 1e trhough 3.5, either a monster encounter is a pushover (resulting in no attrition), or it uses some resources, or it uses all resources (TPK).  The range between using some resources and using all resources determines the relative range where a monster can be generally be considered a real challenge by players.  This is in part a function of the relative power of monsters to characters, and in part a function of the power curve said characters enjoy.  It is, of course, also a function of what resources a monster can potentially use up.

As the range of challenging encounters narrows, the resources used by such encounters increases.  3.X suffered from the fact that, while the characters were given considerably more resources than in earlier editions, they suffered resource attrition at an even greater rate.  Of course, here we speak of general trends.  In 4.0, the resource attrition is mechanically limited, but this means that the resources used are liable to be even more important to have on hand when facing a "challenging" encounter.

These factors may appear, on the outset, to lower the benefit of resting, but I believe that they do exactly the opposite, for the reasons I outlined earlier in this thread.  

In another thread on this site, there is some discussion of Mike Mearls' comments on the CR System, and how it looked good on paper, but was effectively limiting in play.  The factors he lists include, using other terminology, the narrowing range of challenging encounters.  This seems to me to be much more of the same.


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> As the good Archchancellor noted above, that really doesn't relate to my point. And personally, I think lowering the cost of not resting is mechanically much easier to do, which may explain why WotC is taking the approach they seem to be in 4e with unlimited or "per encounter" abilities.





Well, if a year after release, the 15-minute adventuring day has gone away, and no one is complaining about how some encounters don't matter, then I'll happily admit that I was wrong.

Very happily, even.

(I wonder whether anyone else will be so honest if the complaints arrive as I predict, though?)


RC


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In another thread on this site, there is some discussion of Mike Mearls' comments on the CR System, and how it looked good on paper, but was effectively limiting in play.  The factors he lists include, using other terminology, the narrowing range of challenging encounters.  This seems to me to be much more of the same.



It is a stated design goal of 4e to increase the range of PC levels in respect of which a given creature will be a challenging encounter.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (I wonder whether anyone else will be so honest if the complaints arrive as I predict, though?)



It's my thought that we will still see this problem in some groups.  It won't go away entirely.  As people have said, as long as there is at least ONE per day resource, there is a mechanical reason to rest after every encounter.

However, each group will set the level of risk that is acceptable for them.  For some groups, the power level given to them with NO per day resources at all will still be acceptable to continue with and they will keep going until the story gives them a reason to stop.

Some groups will be very, very careful and will rest as soon as they lose any resources.

However, if every last per day resource is used up in 3.5e right now, I don't know any group that would be suicidal enough to continue.

Also, I don't know any encounter that feels significant that doesn't use up at least one spell of some sort in 3.5e.  I assume that it is possible to throw an encounter against a party in 4e that feels significant (if possibly still easy) that doesn't use daily resources.

Which means the change can only help the problem, even if it doesn't eliminate it entirely.


----------



## Gwathlas

*Very close to my setiments*



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.
> 
> I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.
> 
> So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?
> 
> I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?




I feel very much the same, it almost sounds like you could just call the DM and ask if you had a ggod time.   To much talk of everyone doing cool things every round. I like the challange as a player and making the game a challange as a DM.


----------



## Gwathlas

Merlion said:
			
		

> Thats different from now in what way?
> 
> The PCs generally win no matter what. They generally overcome whatever challenges presented and/or reach their goals regardless. Thats how the game is built. Yea, characters do even die now and then...but they can be ressurected.
> 
> And I think flexibility is part of it, but I think especially when it comes to the Wizard and other primary casting classes BadKarmaboy is right. A lot of it is a time thing. Lets say you encounter a magically sealed door. The Wizard knows the spell to bypass it, so its going to get bypassed. But under the current system, if he doesnt already happen to have it prepared, you have to wait a day. So, its going to get bypassed, its just a matter of when....so why make everyone stop because the wizard has to rest 8 hours and prepare spells?
> 
> Likewise with combat encounters. As it is, the Wizards and other spellcasters often run out of spells while many of the other class types are still pretty good to go, which doesnt really seem very fair, to anyone.




So unlimited spells for all my friends! Following your logic there's no need for your group to get together, you can just ask the DM if you had fun and how many monsters you killed. 

It's the DM's job to make the adventure a challange and the players to overcome it. There are ways to speed up time flow rather then giving out spells like copper pieces.


----------



## IanArgent

Um, I find it's much _easier_ to challenge players when they don't have to worry about resource management - because you have a much better idea of how the character will perform at any particular time.

I prefer to challenge the players to think than challenge the characters to use resources - it's much more satisfying on both sides that way.


----------



## shilsen

Gwathlas said:
			
		

> So unlimited spells for all my friends! Following your logic there's no need for your group to get together, you can just ask the DM if you had fun and how many monsters you killed.
> 
> It's the DM's job to make the adventure a challange and the players to overcome it. There are ways to speed up time flow rather then giving out spells like copper pieces.




To reverse the hyperbole of your first two sentences, let me point out that you can also increase the challenge for PCs by giving all classes d4 HD and allowing spellcasters to only cast six spells per day. But nobody here is suggesting that. Similarly, it's foolish to say that anyone here is suggesting unlimited spells and that there's clearly no challenge in the "per encounter" paradigm.

Personally, as a DM, I enjoy the challenge of giving the PCs an exciting and challenging encounter when they have all their resources and the enemies are weaker than them. That actually takes some work on my part. Challenging PCs through resource attrition is easy and boring. YMMV, and apparently does.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> My point is that, if bad play never leads to a risk of death in the attrition game - ie if every encounter is one which, however poorly the players have managed their resources, they can succeed at - then the attrition game will also be mechanically meaningless. Assuming that non-mechanical thresholds of significance are put to one side for the moment, for the attrition game to be of interest there must be consequences to the players of consuming resources, and I don't see what else those consequences would be but the chance of losing (ie, in the last analysis, PCs dying in) an encounter.




I've said this a few times, I'm running out of ways of making it clearer.  First, under *any* paradigm, a risk of "something bad" (death, for example) must be present for players to worry about their characters.  That seems logical to me.  And nothing I've said contradicts this, so I don't understand the necessity or relevance of the premise in your "if" statement.  The point I was making in the part of the conversation you are referring to was that the deadliness of encounters under the per-encounter paradigm is higher than in 3E.  You're not acknowledging, for reasons I cannot figure out, that it doesn't have to be the N+1 encounter.  It can be N+X encounter.  And thus it seems logical and obvious to me that 3E isn't as deadly.  And at the same time, I've tried to make a case (far less logical and more of an YMMV) that the resource issues make up for the tension created by less immediate risk by creating more of a sense of looming uncertainty.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I expect that WoTC have done market research to try and gauge the tastes of RPGers.




There's no evidence for this.  Wyatt's blog doesn't make mention of it in his research.  I'm not sure why they would withhold it.  If they're going to advocate for something, why not provide all of the information they're using to make their decision.  As it's been pointed out though, they're not getting rid of per-day resources in 4E, and Wyatt's later blog points out some problems with the per-encounter-only design.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure if your first and second examples point in the same direction. You seem to be saying both that operational play allows for mitigation of mistakes, and that per-encounter is more tolerant of mistakes. I don't understand what you mean - these claims seem to me to be in tension.




Somewhat different contexts - I'll try to clarify.  Operational play *allows for* the mitigation of mistakes, but it has with it uncertainty.  As we've discussed, going outside the dungeon is not without decisions and risks.  Losing 10 hitpoints in a per-encounter situation doesn't involve uncertainty, it doesn't involve finding a safe place to camp.   You virtually click your fingers and regain your hitpoints unless the relatively improbable situation occurs of another group of monsters attacking - which, almost by definition and common sense, really deserves to be treated as part of the same encounter.  The main distinction is that the "mitigation" in the former situation requires tactical play, while in the latter it does not.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Turning to the particular issue of healing, it seems to me that in the per-encounter game a 10 hitpoint mistake might well be fatal if healing can't be brought to bear, whereas (as you note in your first example) in an operational game minor cures can handle it easily.




I don't find this to be an "apples to apples" comparison.  It seems fundementally unfair to compare a situation where PCs have no healing in 4E to a situation where PCs have numerous minor cures in 3E.


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> instead they have to play out a retreat, a camp, re-equipping, rememorise spells, possibly resolve some wandering monster encounters that may well be (from the point of view of the plot or theme of the game) largely meaningless.




That's like saying that swinging a sword in a battle is meaningless.  You're reasoning here is circular, because there's no reason that successfully camping is meaningless in a game where success at it is critical to the mission, which presumably has huge amounts of meaning.  The issue of whether or not one or the other is more interesting is a matter of taste/opinion and is seperate.  The basic fact that you seem to be missing is that any activity that's required for success in a mission with meaning, is by definition, meaningful.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> There are still questions unanswered - what happens, for example, if a PC dies in an encounter?




Based on anecdotal evidence and a little reasoning, I would expect 90% of people advocating for an "all per-encounter" resources game never kill PCs in their games.  For the same reasons that they don't like resource issues.  I don't understand why they would make a distinction.  

In any case, I agree that PC death isn't really different basically between the two systems, though as I've said the probabilities are different.  And as the above paragraph alludes to, I'm concerned that all-encounter-resources folks aren't really playing the game the way I do in other ways, like PC death, so they are possibily selling me an idea that's not really taking into account these other issues.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> That is correct, assuming that the "victory conditions" are purely  military. As I've said in earlier posts, per-encounter design I think is more attractive when non-mechanical thresholds of significance are in play.




This is similar to the PC death issue above - I don't see any distinction between per-encounter and per-day resource games in terms of the kinds of "non-mechanical thresholds" issues that can arise.  (BTW - by "per-encounter" I mean "all per-encounter" and by per-day, I certainly allow for some per-encounter abilities)


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The point I was making in the part of the conversation you are referring to was that the deadliness of encounters under the per-encounter paradigm is higher than in 3E.  You're not acknowledging, for reasons I cannot figure out, that it doesn't have to be the N+1 encounter.  It can be N+X encounter.  And thus it seems logical and obvious to me that 3E isn't as deadly.



Just to clarify - does "not as deadly" mean "not as deadly per unit of playing time"? That makes sense to me, in that if encounters N, N+1 etc are not that deadly, but N+x is, then there have been a number of non-deadly encounters - but mistakes in those earlier encounters can result in encounter N+x being deadly when otherwise it would not have been (had resources been properly managed). As I think I already noted, in a per-encounter model there is a compression of this sequence - the unfolding of mistakes happens within the encounter. If this is what you mean by per-encounter being deadlier, than I agree.

I think your notion of deadliness - if I have got it right - is different from Raven Crowking's. As far as I can tell, he is asserting that per-encounter will require encounters to involve creatures with bigger numbers relative to the PCs (so as to make the choice to deploy per-day resources relevant - so already he is talking slightly orthogonally to you, because he is not considering pure per-encounter) which make more encounters _deadly on the probabilities_ - whereas I hope I'm right in thinking that we are focussing on _deadliness resulting from poor play decisions_.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Operational play *allows for* the mitigation of mistakes, but it has with it uncertainty.  As we've discussed, going outside the dungeon is not without decisions and risks.  Losing 10 hitpoints in a per-encounter situation doesn't involve uncertainty, it doesn't involve finding a safe place to camp.   You virtually click your fingers and regain your hitpoints unless the relatively improbable situation occurs of another group of monsters attacking - which, almost by definition and common sense, really deserves to be treated as part of the same encounter.  The main distinction is that the "mitigation" in the former situation requires tactical play, while in the latter it does not.



I think one can't make this call until one knows how hard it is to heal within the context of an encounter - afterall, many D&D encounters require healing during them if the party is to succeed - and how the choice to do so interacts with other mechanical options.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Based on anecdotal evidence and a little reasoning, I would expect 90% of people advocating for an "all per-encounter" resources game never kill PCs in their games.  For the same reasons that they don't like resource issues.  I don't understand why they would make a distinction.



HeroQuest is a system based on per-encounter resoures, which nevertheless allows for character death. But as players can spend Hero Points for "bumps" during contests, the likelihood of a PC dying when a player does not want them to is reduced from a game where the logic of the dice cannot be controverted. I suspect that 4e's Action Points might play a similar role.

As I've noted in earlier posts, it is important for Action Points to work that they not simply become another resource to be managed. Games like HeroQuest attempt to solve this issue by putting acquisition of Hero Points in the hands of the players - they are earned by succeeding at group or individual goals, and this success is in turn in the hands of the player (in part because they can spend points to succeed). But of course this will break down if the main interest of the players is not in the goals per se (and the plot and theme these give rise to) but the meta-goal of succeeding at goals, to earn points, to succeed at goals, etc - so these are not a mechanic for all playstyles.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I've tried to make a case (far less logical and more of an YMMV) that the resource issues make up for the tension created by less immediate risk by creating more of a sense of looming uncertainty.
> 
> <cut to later post>
> 
> That's like saying that swinging a sword in a battle is meaningless.  You're reasoning here is circular, because there's no reason that successfully camping is meaningless in a game where success at it is critical to the mission, which presumably has huge amounts of meaning.  The issue of whether or not one or the other is more interesting is a matter of taste/opinion and is seperate.  The basic fact that you seem to be missing is that any activity that's required for success in a mission with meaning, is by definition, meaningful.



What I was trying to get at is that, for many players, they do not derive pleasure from playing out all the details of the logistics that the party must engage in. To link this to your sword-swinging example - the game does not require the player of a sword-swinger to theorise the physics and biophysics of swordplay, nor to engage in any swordplay. Likewise, many players do not want to engage with the detail of planning and implementing the logistics of a mission - they want it to happen off-screen (presumably by way of survival skill rolls).

That's why I said "meaningless from the point of view of plot or theme", not "meaningless per se". Compare the plot of the a Tom Clancy novel to the plot of a John Woo movie. Both can involve violent gunplay. Only one involves logistical detail as part of the plot. Players who want the John Woo-style plot may not want to have a ruleset that puts playing out the logistics at the front-and-centre, as did 1st ed AD&D.

There is no doubt that this is an issue of taste/YMMV. I was trying to explain why for some (many?) RPGers pure per-day resources introduce an unattractive element into play - it is meaningless _relative to their interest in the game_. 



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't see any distinction between per-encounter and per-day resource games in terms of the kinds of "non-mechanical thresholds" issues that can arise.  (BTW - by "per-encounter" I mean "all per-encounter" and by per-day, I certainly allow for some per-encounter abilities)



I've explained my reasons for disagreeing with this, so won't reiterate them. They're implicit in my previous paragraph. By introducing operational considerations to the centre of play, pure per-day can get in the way of other thresholds of significance. The main workaround is to have only one encounter per day - but that is itself an obstacle to the implimentation of certain thresholds of signficance, because it necessarily constrains plot and theme in certain respects.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> There's no evidence for this.  Wyatt's blog doesn't make mention of it in his research.  I'm not sure why they would withhold it.



There is a lot of evidence that WoTC do extensive market research. Ryan Dancey talked about it back when 3E came out, and a recent thread on the 4e forum discussed more recent market research endeavours (I don't have the URL to hand). I assume they would withhold this data because it is commercially valuable.

How any such data would be relevant to resource design is, from my point of view, pure speculation. But assuming WoTC has such data, I doubt that they would choose design goals that are not supported by it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> To reverse the hyperbole of your first two sentences, let me point out that you can also increase the challenge for PCs by giving all classes d4 HD and allowing spellcasters to only cast six spells per day. But nobody here is suggesting that.





Sounds like _Darkness & Dread_ to me.  An excellent resource for running games designed to scare the bejeezus out of the PCs.


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I've said this a few times, I'm running out of ways of making it clearer.




Indeed.  But this is because, I think, there are some who do not _want_ to see it clearly.  This is why I've given up on answering anyone who clearly doesn't understand and/or doesn't seem to _want to understand_ the argument being presented.

RC


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> Just to clarify - does "not as deadly" mean "not as deadly per unit of playing time"?




Yes, I really meant "deadly per unit of playing time".  Life is 100% deadly over a long enough time period.    



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> so already he is talking slightly orthogonally to you, because he is not considering pure per-encounter) which make more encounters _deadly on the probabilities_ - whereas I hope I'm right in thinking that we are focussing on _deadliness resulting from poor play decisions_.




I don't see how what RC and I are saying is different on this particular topic exactly.  Per-encounter resource situation (combined with the general nature of my game style,  I guess) would result in a higher deadliness per encounter.  

I didn't realize were were focusing on "deadliness resulting from poor play decisions".  I actually believe that having opinions about when someone else is playing poorly is too presumptuous on my part.  I let the dice speak for when people are playing poorly, if there is even such a thing.  I don't always know what the facts look like to the players on the other side of the screen and I'm not comfortable with punishing them for doing something wrong.  That means, to me, all encounters just reduce down to a probability, and if making a mistake is 20% likely among my group, it's no different to me than if they rolled a dice to resolve it.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I think one can't make this call until one knows how hard it is to heal within the context of an encounter - afterall, many D&D encounters require healing during them if the party is to succeed - and how the choice to do so interacts with other mechanical options.




Healing is a resource like all others IMO.  If it is on a per-day basis then the 15 minute adventuring day issues, and all of the "plot-interfering" issues still exist.  In fact, given your expressed preferences for how you run the game, I would suspect that limits on healing would defeat the purpose of the other changes.  



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> But of course this [hero points] will break down if the main interest of the players is not in the goals per se (and the plot and theme these give rise to) but the meta-goal of succeeding at goals, to earn points, to succeed at goals, etc - so these are not a mechanic for all playstyles.




I would assume that my players would choose goals that would match the goals that their characters already have in 3E.  And in any case I think it's too presumptuous of me to assume I know what's in their minds.  I don't like having to have an opinion about alignment for the same reason, and if action/hero points requires me to judge my players' motivations, I would be uncomfortable with that.  



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> What I was trying to get at is that, for many players, they do not derive pleasure from playing out all the details of the logistics that the party must engage in.




Ok, I think we agree on this, I was just pointing out that it was essentially a matter of opinion whereas what you wrote sounded more certain than that.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Players who want the John Woo-style plot may not want to have a ruleset that puts playing out the logistics at the front-and-centre, as did 1st ed AD&D.




I agree that this is a basic difference in game style that creates the difference of opinion here.  However, sometimes I feel like people's stated play-styles aren't matching the reality.  I have no idea if this applies to you specifically or not - but if people who advocate per-encounter resources are also fudging dice and making judgements about how their players run their characters, then I would want that to be more explicitly stated.  IME DMs are not always honest about how they're running the game.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> There is no doubt that this is an issue of taste/YMMV. I was trying to explain why for some (many?) RPGers pure per-day resources introduce an unattractive element into play - it is meaningless _relative to their interest in the game_.




I agree with this.  I think I have two reasons for being involved in this.  One, because the statements in support of all per-encounter were sounding a little universal, rather than a matter of taste.  And secondly because some of the statements which were identifying problems weren't recognizing that there were a set of standard solutions to that problem.  So they were going to "fix" something that already had a "fix" to it and apparently they weren't familiar with that.  I'm not sure if you fit into either category.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> There is a lot of evidence that WoTC do extensive market research. Ryan Dancey talked about it back when 3E came out, and a recent thread on the 4e forum discussed more recent market research endeavours (I don't have the URL to hand). I assume they would withhold this data because it is commercially valuable.




My prior statement anticipates this line of reasoning.  I don't see any reason to advocate for something and then not provide the full evidence for it.  How "commercially valuable" would the statement be that "people like per-encounter resource games" - that's essentially what Wyatt is saying only he's clearly guessing or basing it on his single opinion.  Either he expects people to believe him or he doesn't, and his competitors are among those people.

I'm not saying WoTC doesn't do market research in general.  I'm talking about on this specific problem.  And really I'm wondering about the role that such research can play in the development of rules in general.  You can't really get much informative about a hypothetical rule change for a game that people haven't played yet.  People can tell you what they don't like in the current rules, but I'm less certain that people can make coherent and consistent suggestions for how to fix it.  Things that seem good in the abstract will often turn out to be less so in practice.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Indeed.  But this is because, I think, there are some who do not _want_ to see it clearly.  This is why I've given up on answering anyone who clearly doesn't understand and/or doesn't seem to _want to understand_ the argument being presented.



Sometimes people understand but disagree. This is pretty common in most other domains of inquiry outside the natural sciences (and is not unknown even there). Given that what is under discussion here is (i) the internal logic of a complex and partly unknown ruleset, and (ii) the implications of that logic in the hands of users with complex and partly unknown preferences, disagreement should not be surprising.

Putting it another way - I read quite a bit of economic and policy debate. Economists who devote their professional lives to the questions can't agree on the implications, for the Australian economy, of various policy decisions being taken by government. Why is it surprising that people on an RPG board, who are engaging in arguments written up in people's spare time and without all the relevant data to hand, should disagree on the implications for play of different rulesets?

There is no need to impute bad faith, incompetence, or a lack of mastery of relevant disciplines.


----------



## Mallus

pemerton said:
			
		

> There is no need to impute bad faith, incompetence, or a lack of mastery of relevant disciplines.



Some people enjoy doing so. It's one of the reasons why Hell is other people.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> Sometimes people understand but disagree.




True, but in this case it is usually evident from the form of their disagreement.  When one assumes "Not-X" where "X" is a cornerstone of an argument, and, when the person making that argument decides to bow out, instantly claims "Not-X" as part of that person's argument, one must assume either bad faith or a lack of understanding.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> Some people enjoy doing so. It's one of the reasons why Hell is other people.




Impossible in this case, though.  Hell is clearly my continued involvement in this conversation.


----------



## gizmo33

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I've said this a few times, I'm running out of ways of making it clearer.




I'm sorry if anyone felt, because of this sentence, that I was wholesale dismissing their contribution to the conversation.  It's not uncommon that I feel that folks aren't always discussing things in good faith - sometimes their memory about what was said or what the other person means seems a little selective depending on whether it makes their case or not.  Then again, I suppose it's hard to remember things that you don't agree with, so that could be the reason too.

One reason I made the above quote is that, combined with a little frustration, I was feeling self-conscious about saying the same things repeatedly and not being able to figure out why exactly it seemed necessary.

The second reason was that, in this particular case, I thought the debate was over whether or not per-encounter was more deadly than per-day.  I had gotten to a point where it seemed logical to conclude that if encounter N must be "deadly", then that paradigm is deadlier than one where encounter N+X is deadly, where X is some variable that can be greater than 1.  All of the sudden though, it seemed as if the topic was changed to something along the lines of "if you just transport yourself to the N+X encounter, then it's all the same" which to me boggled my mind in terms of logic.  In fact, I couldn't be all that sure we were discussing the same thing anymore.

I can understand some of RCs frustration because at times the conversation has been very peculiar.  However, I can't rule out that this isn't because of some comprehension issue on my part (at least in general, there are times when I'm more certain than others).  My current theory, based on some moments of clarity, is that the current difference has a lot to do with playstyle in ways that haven't been fully articulated.  The folks that advocate the "all per-encounter" design probably play DnD in a different way than I do.  I still suspect that their own interests will not be best served by some of the consequences of the "all per-encounter" design - but it's probably futile to suggest to people what is in their own interest.  I also recognize that some folks apparently have experience with similar systems and don't have a problem.


----------



## Celebrim

shilsen said:
			
		

> Challenging PCs through resource attrition is easy and boring. YMMV, and apparently does.




Indeed.  Elsewhere in the thread it was argued that one of the main advantages of going to a per encounter model was that it made it easier to design adventurers.  That argument I at least could understand the reasoning behind.  The argument that it is boring (for the players) I also could understand at least on the grounds that everyone has different tastes.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind 'challenging PC's through resource attrition is easy'.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind 'challenging PC's through resource attrition is easy'.



It is easy because all you have to do is put a series of encounters together. If you add a time constraints, you force the players to master their resources to the finest degree to get to all of them without a death or even TPK...

But, at some point, I don't think it's easy anymore - That's the point where you want to challenge, but not outright kill the PCs. The point where you want to have many encounters during an adventure, but none of them should be boring, and they should be done within a time constraint. So I guess, if I try to see things from a "fair, storytelling DM" perspective, I do not agree.


----------



## gizmo33

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But, at some point, I don't think it's easy anymore - That's the point where you want to challenge, but not outright kill the PCs.




Resource attrition does not, by definition, "outright kill the PCs", so I don't really follow the reasoning here.


----------



## shilsen

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Indeed.  Elsewhere in the thread it was argued that one of the main advantages of going to a per encounter model was that it made it easier to design adventurers.  That argument I at least could understand the reasoning behind.  The argument that it is boring (for the players) I also could understand at least on the grounds that everyone has different tastes.




Actually, I meant boring from my POV as the DM (though generally as a player I find adventures based heavily around resource attrition boring too). Challenging PCs via resource attrition means the individual encounters don't have to be challenging on their own merits, but can simply soak up some resources and weaken the PCs for the next encounter, which can soak up some more resources, and so on. For me as a DM, that kind of thing is boring to run. I'd much rather run a single fight which is challenging for the PCs, while they're fully equipped and have all their resources. Since I usually have them fighting enemies who are weaker than the PCs, it takes more work on my part to make the fight challenging on its own merits than if I followed the resource attrition approach, so it's more interesting and less boring too. DMs need a challenge too. Or at least this one does.



> I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind 'challenging PC's through resource attrition is easy'.




Mustrum got a fair bit of what I meant. I think challenging PCs through resource attrition is easy because each encounter doesn't have to be just right. Most of them can just soak up some resources to do its work. When I run a single encounter in the day, with the PCs at their best with all resources at hand, then the encounter has to be done just right to be  challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on. That's a lot less easy, but it is more satisfying for me as a DM.


----------



## gizmo33

shilsen said:
			
		

> Mustrum got a fair bit of what I meant. I think challenging PCs through resource attrition is easy because each encounter doesn't have to be just right. Most of them can just soak up some resources to do its work. When I run a single encounter in the day, with the PCs at their best with all resources at hand, then the encounter has to be done just right to be  challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on.




What's it mean to design an encounter "just" right in a game where you're rolling dice and the players are the ones that get to decide on their actions?  Worse, what if the players get to decide how they approach the encounter?  What if one time they scout properly and manage to prepare spells ahead of time and get the initiative on their enemy whereas the second time they wander through the "dungeon" singing "hi ho it's off to work we go"?

There are so many, play-controlled (in theory) factors that determine when an encounter would be perceived as just right that I don't really find what you're describing here to fit with practice.  And suggesting that per-encounter somehow *requires* this to be the case?  Something seems to be missing here.

Again, it's increasingly seeming to me that the play-style thing that seems to largely drive the per-encounter side is that of a heavily plot-driven, linear adventure style where a lot of issues can be controlled by the DM.


----------



## gizmo33

shilsen said:
			
		

> When I run a single encounter in the day, with the PCs at their best with all resources at hand, then the encounter has to be done just right to be  challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on. That's a lot less easy, but it is more satisfying for me as a DM.




Also - "challenging on it's own merits" to me means that each individual encounter must pose a significant (measurable) chance of killing a PC.  This is something that continues to be disputed by at least some of the pro-per-encounter people, so how is it now that this is treated as an established fact?  Are they only considered "facts" when they're used to support one side of the argument and not the other?


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Also - "challenging on it's own merits" to me means that each individual encounter must pose a significant (measurable) chance of killing a PC.  This is something that continues to be disputed by at least some of the pro-per-encounter people, so how is it now that this is treated as an established fact?  Are they only considered "facts" when they're used to support one side of the argument and not the other?




You will note also, I hope, that we have finally come around to two key points made earlier:

*  It is easier to plan a successful game using the attrition model, and hence far more likely to be done well by the average DM.

*  The per-encounter model, being focused on balancing encounters "just right", has a far narrower window to create encounters that are "challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on".​
These things are either generally true or generally not true.  

If true, then it follows that it is more difficult to create encounters that are "challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on" than to create a successful game using the attrition model.

It then follows that per-encounter encounters are more likely to be not challenging enough (too easy) or too challenging (TPK, significant chance of character death).

We have seen repeatedly on this board (and in other places) the call to abandon any encounters that are not challenging enough.  This is, IMHO, unlikely to change in 4e.

The result is that it follows that DMs are more likely to lean toward too challenging than not challenging enough.

It in turn follows that any resource attrition in those games will be worth restoring (if possible) because all resources (and possibly more than all) are needed to face the challenges of the game.

If this could be any more obvious, it would have to be wearing a clown suit and sitting in your lap.


RC


----------



## gizmo33

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It is easier to plan a successful game using the attrition model, and hence far more likely to be done well by the average DM.




I agree with the spirit of most of what you're saying but this statement doesn't feel right to me.  Perhaps I misunderstand the context.

The attrition model requires that the DM plan the adventure/dungeon in 4 dimensions.  It's just not good enough to think about what is sitting where and what they're doing at the moment PCs visit the dungeon.  You have to think about what they'll do in the event that the PCs retreat, change tactics, etc - and the DM might have to plan for this to go a day or two out. 

Somewhere earlier (it was this thread I believe), there was an example of someone running Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.  Neither he nor the module planned for the contingency of the PCs repeatedly leaving the dungeon - so all the DM did was continue to stock the same areas with the same monsters until he got tired of the sheer boredom.  This, IMO, is an example of how the attrition game is actually difficult to plan for because you have to think about the dungeon/adventure in a number of different ways.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Resource attrition does not, by definition, "outright kill the PCs", so I don't really follow the reasoning here.



Well, I am still "I make it easy for me as the DM"-part, which means I am just putting a bunch of encounters together without really checking how much resources the player will have after each encounter. Once you put your mind a bit more into your adventure design, you will naturally gauge the likely resource attrition for each encounter and try to put so many encounters in a day that the last encounter will be hard, but not impossible. But than, as I said, using resource attrition isn't actually easy anymore...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You will note also, I hope, that we have finally come around to two key points made earlier:
> 
> *  It is easier to plan a successful game using the attrition model, and hence far more likely to be done well by the average DM.
> 
> *  The per-encounter model, being focused on balancing encounters "just right", has a far narrower window to create encounters that are "challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on".​
> These things are either generally true or generally not true.
> 
> If true, then it follows that it is more difficult to create encounters that are "challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on" than to create a successful game using the attrition model.
> 
> It then follows that per-encounter encounters are more likely to be not challenging enough (too easy) or too challenging (TPK, significant chance of character death).
> 
> We have seen repeatedly on this board (and in other places) the call to abandon any encounters that are not challenging enough.  This is, IMHO, unlikely to change in 4e.
> 
> The result is that it follows that DMs are more likely to lean toward too challenging than not challenging enough.
> 
> It in turn follows that any resource attrition in those games will be worth restoring (if possible) because all resources (and possibly more than all) are needed to face the challenges of the game.
> 
> If this could be any more obvious, it would have to be wearing a clown suit and sitting in your lap.
> 
> 
> RC



In the 3rd Edition, an average encounter (EL = PL) is expected to cast approximately 25 % of the parties resources. 
If you "go nova" in any encounter, and feel the need to rest after it (9:15 adventuring day), this implies that you spend a lot more than 25 % of your characters resource. Probably around 80%. (This type of resource expenditure would normally only be required in very difficult encounters - EL = PL 4). This means you just spend 3 x the expected amount of resources for a single encounter. 

If your daily resources only consist of 20 % of your total resources in each encounter, this means that there is a lot smaller margin between the difficult and the average encounter. Basically, instead from requiring 100-300 % of your average expected resources per encounter, you wander from 100 % to 120 %*). 

The margin of error between expected and used resources per encounter in a purely/mostly daily resource model is extremely high. 

Compensating 200 % points of difference in a difficult encounter is pretty much impossible. Therefore the risk of not resting is extremely high. Or, the other way around, the benefit of resting is extremely high. 

But a difference of 20 % points? It might require some hard thinking and clever planning, but that's manageable. Therefore, the risk of not resting is a lot lower, too. 
Sure, extremely careful players will still want to rest after each encounter. But the extremely careful player is a lot less common than the regular careful or sensible player. 


*) mathematical nitpickers will note that the numbers are slightly of, it should be 100 to 312.5 and 100 to 125, since I should use the expected average resource consumption per encounter as base for the percentages, if I am not mistaken...)


----------



## shilsen

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> What's it mean to design an encounter "just" right in a game where you're rolling dice and the players are the ones that get to decide on their actions?




Since I was speaking purely about my game, all I can tell you is what "just" right means for me. It means designing an encounter which has a significant likelihood of giving the PCs a good knock-down drag-out fight.



> Worse, what if the players get to decide how they approach the encounter?




Most of the time, except in rare cases like ambush situations, the players do get to decide how they approach the encounter. Nothing better or worse about it for me.



> What if one time they scout properly and manage to prepare spells ahead of time and get the initiative on their enemy whereas the second time they wander through the "dungeon" singing "hi ho it's off to work we go"?




Odds are they have a much better chance of an easy win in the first case and are likely to be in a lot more trouble in the second.



> There are so many, play-controlled (in theory) factors that determine when an encounter would be perceived as just right that I don't really find what you're describing here to fit with practice.  And suggesting that per-encounter somehow *requires* this to be the case?  Something seems to be missing here.




Two things are missing. One - I was describing my practice, not anyone else's (that's why the post referred to by Celebrim, who I responded to, began "Personally, as a DM..."). Second, I never mentioned the per-encounter model in my post. I was referring to the fact that resource attrition bores me personally as an approach and responding to a question about that.



> Again, it's increasingly seeming to me that the play-style thing that seems to largely drive the per-encounter side is that of a heavily plot-driven, linear adventure style where a lot of issues can be controlled by the DM.




Who knows? Personally, I run a game which is very heavily player/PC-driven, with the players having very significant control over what they do, who they fight, what is the plotline for the game, etc. But I also like the idea of a mix of per-day and per-encounter abilities for PCs. 



> Also - "challenging on it's own merits" to me means that each individual encounter must pose a significant (measurable) chance of killing a PC. This is something that continues to be disputed by at least some of the pro-per-encounter people, so how is it now that this is treated as an established fact?




Since what "challenging on it's own merits" means to you is irrelevant to me and my players, assuming that I am treating it as an established fact is more than a trifle presumptive. Especially since, as noted earlier in the thread, I've effectively taken death out of my game. For me, challenging on its own merits means a fight which does some damage to the PCs, makes them work for their victory and has a chance, however slim (and sometimes quite a strong one), of ending up with their defeat.



> Are they only considered "facts" when they're used to support one side of the argument and not the other?




See above.


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If this could be any more obvious, it would have to be wearing a clown suit and sitting in your lap.




I'd say that if it were any more obvious that your particular lines of reasoning don't hold true for some people posting here, it would have to be hitting you on the head over and over with a clue bat. But clearly it isn't that obvious to you, just as a lot that you seem to regard as logical or self-evident or well-argued isn't to me. Which doesn't surprise me, since I never assume that what's evident to me is or should be evident to other people. 



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The attrition model requires that the DM plan the adventure/dungeon in 4 dimensions. It's just not good enough to think about what is sitting where and what they're doing at the moment PCs visit the dungeon. You have to think about what they'll do in the event that the PCs retreat, change tactics, etc - and the DM might have to plan for this to go a day or two out.




I'd say the same sort of planning can easily occur in the non-attrition model too. Simple example: The last two sessions of my campaign involved my PCs attacking two armies over four days of game time. In each case, the PCs scouted out the enemy and got to choose the circumstances of the attack, with wildly variant strategy and tactics. Individual PCs also heavily changed the circumstances by doing things like launching a lone attack on the army, retreating and returning the next day, etc. Each army consisted of near 2000 individuals, including scouts, the bulk of the army, leader types of various kinds, etc. Every time the PCs changed tactics (which they did a lot) and did something off the wall (like setting up an explosive door in the path of the army!), it meant the people in the army reacted in various ways, which the PCs then reacted to and came up with new plans, and so on. Each encounter was the only fight for the day and was well outside the attrition model, but it required the same things you described above.


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if anyone felt, because of this sentence, that I was wholesale dismissing their contribution to the conversation.



I didn't feel that, so no apology is necessary to me at least! In fact, as I've said in a number of posts over the past 800 or so, I think we're really very close in how we're looking at this - (although I'm not sure you agree with that?) - but may have different personal priorities in play.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> in this particular case, I thought the debate was over whether or not per-encounter was more deadly than per-day.  I had gotten to a point where it seemed logical to conclude that if encounter N must be "deadly", then that paradigm is deadlier than one where encounter N+X is deadly, where X is some variable that can be greater than 1.  All of the sudden though, it seemed as if the topic was changed to something along the lines of "if you just transport yourself to the N+X encounter, then it's all the same" which to me boggled my mind in terms of logic.  In fact, I couldn't be all that sure we were discussing the same thing anymore.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't see how what RC and I are saying is different on this particular topic exactly.  Per-encounter resource situation (combined with the general nature of my game style,  I guess) would result in a higher deadliness per encounter.
> 
> I didn't realize were were focusing on "deadliness resulting from poor play decisions".




Here is a recent quote from RC:



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The per-encounter model, being focused on balancing encounters "just right", has a far narrower window to create encounters that are "challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It then follows that per-encounter encounters are more likely to be not challenging enough (too easy) or too challenging (TPK, significant chance of character death).



As I understand it, RC is emphasising that when the margin between full resources and expended resources is only 20% (because a character with only per-encounter resources left is still at 80% effectiveness, as per WoTC design posts) there is less numerical/probabilistic margin for error in designing an encounter that is mechanically significant in his sense (ie has an impact on resource consumption). This, he contends, will produce more deadly encounters.

My response to his argument was to contend - without success in convincing him - that the introduction of per-encounter resources actually increases the scope for a type of mechanical interest that is independent of resource attrition. Because, with per-encounter resources in the mix, players have more and varied resources to deploy and therefore a more sophisticated set of tactical decisions to make within an encounter, I maintain that an encounter can have mechanical interest even though, if well-played by the players, the PCs end up facing little threat of death. By argument here is partly theoretical/speculative, but also based on my own experience GMing Rolemaster for over 15 years, which has a mix of per-day (spell point), per-encounter (adreman move) and per-round (attack vs parry) resources, all of which interact in interesting ways.

Your response (as I understood it) was to say that, if complex tactical decisions are required, there is a good chance (over time) of error, and therefore the deadliness increases.

My response was to agree with this, but suggest that deadliness due to poor tactical play is different from the probabilistic/numerical concerns that RC had. Perhaps I'm wrong in this suggestion, but at the moment I don't think that I am.

I then went on to suggest that, in resource-attrition play, poor decisions can also increase the risk of death. You responded by agreeing, I think, but pointing out that this may not happen until enconter N+X. I agreed, but noted that the great the value of X, the greater the number of encounters that are interesting only for their resource-management implications, and for certain play styles at least this is not all that interesting.

And I think that's the current state of play on this issue.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Yes, I really meant "deadly per unit of playing time".



I asked only becase per-encounter resources are likely to make combat more complex, and thus take longer, and therefore the number of encounters per unit of playing time is likely to drop, and thus the increase in poor-play deadliness per encounter, which I agree is there, will probably be greater than the increase in deadliness per unit of playing time.

Not a big point, but just one I thought was worth stating expressly.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> What's it mean to design an encounter "just" right in a game where you're rolling dice and the players are the ones that get to decide on their actions?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Again, it's increasingly seeming to me that the play-style thing that seems to largely drive the per-encounter side is that of a heavily plot-driven, linear adventure style where a lot of issues can be controlled by the DM.



I think the notion of an encounter being "just right" applies mostly to the sort of numerical/probabilistic sort of considerations that RC has in mind - balancing the threat to the party with the resources available.

The 4e designers have said they will be trying to expand the range of numerically "just right" encounters. My belief is that they will be able to do this because, with the sort of tactical complexity I have talked about becoming more important, that sort of numerical balance becomes less important.

Btw, I don't think that plot-driven play is linear in the way you describe. You seem to be talking about rail-roading. I'm talking about player-driven play. But that's really a side issue - what is important is that (as far as I can tell) we seem largely to be on the same page about the relationship between resource-management rules and play style.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> In the 3rd Edition, an average encounter (EL = PL) is expected to cast approximately 25 % of the parties resources.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The margin of error between expected and used resources per encounter in a purely/mostly daily resource model is extremely high.




This is true.  It is a direct result of mechanically narrowing the window of opponents that are challenging without being overwhelming (in the case of 3e, as a function mostly of power curve).  

This is one of the (many) reasons why narrowing that window even further is a colossally bad idea.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> I'd say that if it were any more obvious that your particular lines of reasoning don't hold true for some people posting here, it would have to be hitting you on the head over and over with a clue bat. But clearly it isn't that obvious to you




Should I go back upthread, and Yoink all the quotes where I have said exactly that?  I'm sure, without breaking a sweat, that I could find a dozen or more examples.

It would take no effort at all to point out that I have already said, on this thread, that my homebrew modifications to 3.x include a mix of resources, some of which are per-encounter, without causing me difficulty.  

But that something doesn't cause me difficulty isn't even evidenciary that it wouldn't cause someone else difficulty.  If it was, I would be forced to conclude that, since I never had the 15-minute adventuring day problem using unmodified 3.0 or 3.5, the problem doesn't exist.  But that would be an erroneous conclusion at best.  Similarly, were I to claim that I played Game X for Y years without encountering problem Z, that doesn't mean that problem Z isn't going to be an issue for the average players of Game X.

_*My concern is not what an individual DM may or may not be able to do with the system; my concern lies with the hypothetical average (or new) DM and the DM who is already experiencing the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem.*_

I am not saying that having a mix cannot be desireable (I've said repeatedly that it depends on the mix); I am saying that changing this mix will not solve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem _for those who are prone to have it_.

RC


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Should I go back upthread, and Yoink all the quotes where I have said exactly that?  I'm sure, without breaking a sweat, that I could find a dozen or more examples.




You may have said that upthread, but that's not what you were saying in the line I quoted and was responding to, namely:



> If this could be any more obvious, it would have to be wearing a clown suit and sitting in your lap.




I was simply pointing out that the line of reasoning and the conclusions which you listed before using that line are clearly not that obvious, otherwise everyone here would be in agreement with you.


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> I was simply pointing out that the line of reasoning and the conclusions which you listed before using that line are clearly not that obvious, otherwise everyone here would be in agreement with you.





Yeah, well I'm a bit tired of having to repeat myself because, apparently, what I am saying is _*not*_ obvious.  And, I don't mean, not obvious in a "I get what you're saying, but I don't agree" sense.  I mean not obvious in a "So, if you think ducks lay eggs how do you explain that dogs do not, and how dare you say ducks don't lay eggs?" sense.

RC


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yeah, well I'm a bit tired of having to repeat myself because, apparently, what I am saying is _*not*_ obvious.  And, I don't mean, not obvious in a "I get what you're saying, but I don't agree" sense.  I mean not obvious in a "So, if you think ducks lay eggs how do you explain that dogs do not, and how dare you say ducks don't lay eggs?" sense.
> 
> RC



 Cute. I'd personally describe it as not obvious in an "I'm going to repeat the same stuff over and over again, even though a number of people (pemerton and Jackelope King, for example) have pointed out why it is flawed."

Really, people disagreeing with your reasoning however many times you repeat yourself doesn't necessarily mean they don't get it. It can also mean that they found the reasoning wrong the first time, so repeating it ad nauseam means they find it wrong every time. Some of the people in my group were discussing the 4e forum a fortnight ago and this thread came up, and someone mentioned that he was fairly convinced that you were intentionally repeating the same argument over and over with just a variation in (and often intentionally obfuscating) language, almost like trolling. I said that I thought you honestly did mean what you were posting, and just didn't get why others might think you were wrong. Similarly, other people may just honestly not get why you think it's a good argument.

And seriously, if you're tired of repeating yourself, why keep posting and doing so? I post here once in a while just because I find it a damn amusing thread (and a bit of a train wreck) and it's something to do during a break conferencing with students. What's your motivation?


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> Cute. I'd personally describe it as not obvious in an "I'm going to repeat the same stuff over and over again, even though a number of people (pemerton and Jackelope King, for example) have pointed out why it is flawed."




EDIT:  Actually, strike this.  I haven't had a good night's sleep now in close to three weeks, and anything I write on this topic right now bound to come out wrong.

RC


----------



## IanArgent

I'd be more worried about per-encounter resource balancing if, even if 3.5, most non-spellcasting abilities weren't essentially at-will. The game _already_ has to deal with such things as Flurry of Blows, Whirlwind attack, and so so being at-will. It is only with organic spellcasting that this model is broken; and even so, if you cannot guarantee that there will be more than one encounter, spellcasting can be per-encounter ANYWAY.

That's been my stance from the beginning, and I think it's been at least one other person's stance. The only encounter guaranteed to happen is the one that is being run now. There is nothing the DM can do _mechanically_ to prevent the 9-9:15 adventuring day. He can do so by storyline (wandering monsters, no place to rest, etc), but short of obviously railroading, he cannot prevent the party from retreating; at least not every time they want to retreat. So what, short of killing the player or the party, can the DM do when the spellcasting players go nova in each encounter, and then say "we're done, time to rest?" Say the party has been fighting their way through the defenses and minions of the Ultimate Villain, and are approaching his Throne Room. When the adventure was laid down, the adventure designer was anticipating the party would still have a decent supply of per-day abilities left; but though either bad judgement or bad luck, the prior fights ended up requiring more per-day resources than the designer anticipated. The party is at the door of the Throne Room; and they're not in a state to fight the opponent. The previous fights, individually, only sapped a little more than expected from the party, but the chain of them tacken together put the party in an unwinnable fight at the end. Do you kill the party, or do you let them wait 8 hours in front of the door to the throne room? And if you did structure the adventure such that they would have a chance to rest before the final fight, what was the point, operationally, of the previous encounters? (Ignore, for the moment, that they may have been required by story - we're doing a purely mechanical anaysis here). Either they were set up to attrit resources, in which case allowing the party to catch a breather invalidates them, or they were not, in which case the party could have used more spell resources in the previous fights.

Contrariwise, all of the previous encounters were bypassed by player cunning and guile, and adventure design assumed that only a handful of the "warm-up" encounters would be bypassed this way (the players got lucky). They arrive at the Throne Room able to kick ass _and_ chew bubblegum. The Ultimate Villain ecounter is set such that the party was expected to be nearly out of bubblegum. It's a walkover or the DM has to adjust the encounter "on the fly".

Every encounter in the current system is a DM balancing act; since the designer can only dimly grasp what resources the party will have available to them at any point in the adventure. He can guess, he can attempt to force the pace, but in the end, rate of organic resource expenditure in purely in the hands of the players.

Hit points, by the way, are a per-day resource that is _not_ in the same boat. Firstly, the DM determines the rate at which hit points are expended, and can very easily fudge the expenditure of them (unlike spells, the loss of hitpoints is almost entirely controlled on the far side fo the screen). Secondly, everyone uses the same basic mechanic to control expenditure and recovery - so it's already balanced (more or less) across all the parties. (side guess - there will be no d4 hit die for PC classes, or there will be some other mechanic to prevent the wizard from having rather less than half of the fighter's hit points or from it mattering - dying from one hit because the fighter screwed up is Not Fun). And from a metagame POV, it's easier to put in a few extra healing potions than it is to explain why the party can rest at story-inappropriate times.

And that's the choice - at some point with the artillery being almost exclusively per-day, you end up having to either kill the party or allow them to rest at story-inappropriate times. Yes, experienced DMs and players can mitigate this to a lesser or greater extent; but D&D _has_ to cater to the inexperienced DMs and players. It is better for the game and hobby that the design of D&D be such that, if the characters are at 80% after expending all their per-day resources, the balance-point for an encounter be "party is at 90% of resources". If they are low, it's a slightly harder fight, if they are high and choose to expend daily resources, it's a slightly easier fight. but you don't have to guess where the party (particularly the spellcasters) are on their power curve.

Right now, the various classes are all playing different games WRT operational-level play. This brings everyone into the same game.


----------



## gizmo33

shilsen said:
			
		

> Since I was speaking purely about my game, all I can tell you is what "just" right means for me. It means designing an encounter which has a significant likelihood of giving the PCs a good knock-down drag-out fight.




Reading things written in absolute terms always sets off alarm bells to me.  If you were speaking "purely" about your game, then what reason would you have to make universal statements?  For example:



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Challenging PCs via resource attrition means the individual encounters don't have to be challenging on their own merits, but can simply soak up some resources and weaken the PCs for the next encounter, which can soak up some more resources, and so on.




Now I don't see anything about "your game" in this statement.  Since it's about resource attrition, which you supposedly don't use in your game, then it actually cannot be about your game.  In fact, your statements above seemed to ping-pong back and forth between your personal experiences and universal ones.  

It's like saying this:
"Dwarves are boring.  Since my players and I don't enjoy a boring game, I personally don't use dwarves.  I guess if you like boring games you can use dwarves."

There are personal statements here, and universal statements.  I guess it isn't always clear which is which.  I took my best guess at what parts of your posts had relevance to the thread.  If none of what you posted has any sense of a universal statement or relevance to the thread then I agree that I shouldn't have much of an opinion on it, as you seem to be advising.



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Most of the time, except in rare cases like ambush situations, the players do get to decide how they approach the encounter. Nothing better or worse about it for me.




I interpreted "just right" to mean "just right" in terms of *something* because without that *something* the phrase means nothing to me.  "Worse" was meant in that context.  Now apparently "just right" doesn't mean anything comprehensible to any individual who is not you or your players. 



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Odds are they have a much better chance of an easy win in the first case and are likely to be in a lot more trouble in the second.




What does "trouble" mean in a game without death?  Wedgies for all?  Action points loss?



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Who knows? Personally, I run a game which is very heavily player/PC-driven, with the players having very significant control over what they do, who they fight, what is the plotline for the game, etc. But I also like the idea of a mix of per-day and per-encounter abilities for PCs.




What does it mean to use "per-day" resources and not have resource attrition?  Are the per-day powers insignificant in terms of the PCs over-all power?  For example, is a character's per-day resource something like "5d6 fireball" and their per-encounter resources is "5d6 fireball" ?



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Since what "challenging on it's own merits" means to you is irrelevant to me and my players, assuming that I am treating it as an established fact is more than a trifle presumptive.




I was presuming that the statement was relevant to the thread.  I'm usually that presumptive.  Your statements above were often universal in the way they were worded.


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> That's been my stance from the beginning, and I think it's been at least one other person's stance. The only encounter guaranteed to happen is the one that is being run now. There is nothing the DM can do _mechanically_ to prevent the 9-9:15 adventuring day.




This is true.  I think that what is essential is to make resting/not resting an interesting choice, because it is a choice with consequences both good and not-so-good.  IMHO, More Relevant Player Choices + Wider Range of Player Choices + Context + Consequence = Better Game.



> And that's the choice - at some point with the artillery being almost exclusively per-day, you end up having to either kill the party or allow them to rest at story-inappropriate times.




Well, there is this difference, too.  I believe that the story is what happens _as a result of_ player choices and their consequences.  I don't believe that it is generally appropriate for the DM to try to "force" a plan of "what will happen".


RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am not saying that having a mix cannot be desireable (I've said repeatedly that it depends on the mix); I am saying that changing this mix will not solve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem _for those who are prone to have it_.



And I think it will with my group.  They are prone to having the problem.  They wouldn't rest after every encounter if they regained most of their resources after every battle without rest.

Therefore, it will fix the problem.

It's a simple matter of the party losing 50% of their "resources" at the end of the first battle in the day:
"50% of our resources gone.  We won't survive another battle, let's rest, it's our only choice."
vs.
"We went back up to 95% of our resources at the end of that encounter, we can survive another no problem."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is true.  It is a direct result of mechanically narrowing the window of opponents that are challenging without being overwhelming (in the case of 3e, as a function mostly of power curve).
> 
> This is one of the (many) reasons why narrowing that window even further is a colossally bad idea.
> 
> 
> RC



Either I didn't write it clear enough,or by snipping parts of the post, you changed the intented meaning, but to rephrase: 

The margin of error I speak of the error on "how much will the party actually use to beat the encounter" and "how much is the party expected to use". In D&D 3.x, they can use a lot more than 25 %, making the encounter pretty easy. Unfortunately, if they do that, they can't take as many encounters per day as expected. Which can screw up time-constrained adventurers. Sure, the players might have been stupid for doing so, and thus made an error. But making this error is too easy. You don't always know if an encounter is EL = PL, especially if you happen to be unfamiliar with the monsters or NPCs encountered.

In D&D 4, you cannot spend more than 20% the expected resources for an encounter. In the next encounter, you will still be at 80 %. So, the adventure designer/DM can very easily kepe this margin in mind when designing his next encounters, and they will still feel challening and interesting if the players didn't waste the daily resources to early, because there is only a 20 % margin instead of a 300 %...


----------



## Raven Crowking

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> And I think it will with my group.  They are prone to having the problem.  They wouldn't rest after every encounter if they regained most of their resources after every battle without rest.
> 
> Therefore, it will fix the problem.
> 
> It's a simple matter of the party losing 50% of their "resources" at the end of the first battle in the day:
> "50% of our resources gone.  We won't survive another battle, let's rest, it's our only choice."
> vs.
> "We went back up to 95% of our resources at the end of that encounter, we can survive another no problem."





Won't that depend very much on what % of resources your party feels is necessary to overcome a "challenging" encounter?

In my home brew, one of the things I used was Wound Points/Vitality.  Every encounter has the potential of dealing important damage, but most deal only inconsequential damage.  This means that you can often press on (though in my varient, you gain LVL Vitality back/minute of rest, so that if really pressed, you might suffer from Vitality attrition), but there are no "fluff" encounters.

The problem that I am seeing in the WotC playtest reports is that every encounter becomes, essentially, "fluff" or "win/lose", with "win/lose" being defined as designed for 80%+ resources.  If this is the case, any non-fluff encounter will automatically require resting to prevent running into another non-fluff encounter at less than full strength.

There might be some as-yet-unrevealed mechanic to get around this problem.  I just haven't seen any evidence that they've considered this problem yet.  Moreover, if not considered, this is the type of problem that hides behind the "shine" of a new system (because it requires players to gain an intuitive handle on the mathematics of the new system), and thus is unlikely to become obvious in a month's playtest.  And the print deadline for the PHB is looming.


RC


----------



## Mallus

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Reading things written in absolute terms always sets off alarm bells to me.



Fixed it for you.



> What does "trouble" mean in a game without death?  Wedgies for all?  Action points loss?



It means the same thing as it does in a game w/death. To wit; the threat of losing something  the players are invested in. 

In the case of a game where death is an option, players are typically most heavily invested in their own character's survival. In games without death, they're invested in other things, usually relating to the in-game narrative, things like 'finding the Grail' or 'overthrowing the evil king'. 

Note that I'm _not_ saying that in games with death, players don't have other goals, just that it's possible to removal 'survival' as the principle goal and still have an interesting/exciting campaign.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Either I didn't write it clear enough,or by snipping parts of the post, you changed the intented meaning, but to rephrase:




I'll accept the blame.  My younger daughter just turned 1, and she's had a cold for weeks now, preventing me from gaining a real night's sleep.  It is therefore probable that I am far from my mental peak.

In any event, I think that this is more complicated than you do, but I've already stated why.  We'll have to agree to disagree, until (if) 4e proves one of us wrong.    

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> It means the same thing as it does in a game w/death. To wit; the threat of losing something  the players are invested in.
> 
> In the case of a game where death is an option, players are typically most heavily invested in their own character's survival. In games without death, they're invested in other things, usually relating to the in-game narrative, things like 'finding the Grail' or 'overthrowing the evil king'.




Is there any _absolute_ loss, though, or do you just get to try to find the Grail and overthrow the king another time?

If, once you've failed the Grail Quest, you don't get another shot at it, then I'd agree that the game without death has equal (or perhaps greater) stakes than the game with death.  Of course, if death is easily undone, then the game with death doesn't have very high stakes either.


RC


----------



## gizmo33

pemerton said:
			
		

> My response to his argument was to contend - without success in convincing him - that the introduction of per-encounter resources actually increases the scope for a type of mechanical interest that is independent of resource attrition.




I have never understood, though this is a long standing issue, how an encounter that poses no risk to a PC (of either resource loss or loss of life) is of any mechanical interest.  (I realize that an earlier example about your students attempted to show this, but I didn't quite get it.)

Maybe try with this extreme example.  4 20th level characters against 4 standard kobolds.  The 20th level characters are at full power, and so they have a huge range of abilities to exercise.  There's no chance of PC death.  And we'll say there's no resource expenditure issues since it's the only encounter that day (and it probably doesn't even require that).  My question is:  how can you make this an encounter of "mechanical interest"?  If this is a bad example, then why?  What fundemental difference is there with any other encounter where PCs know they're going to win and know that there is no impact on their daily resources?



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Your response (as I understood it) was to say that, if complex tactical decisions are required, there is a good chance (over time) of error, and therefore the deadliness increases.




Yes, because I make a lot of the word "required" here to mean "required to stay alive".  If that's not what you mean then I don't know what you're saying.  



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> My response was to agree with this, but suggest that deadliness due to poor tactical play is different from the probabilistic/numerical concerns that RC had. Perhaps I'm wrong in this suggestion, but at the moment I don't think that I am.




Any two things are similar and different so it would help for me to be more precise.  A game design/paradigm that produces an X% of PC death per encounter is going to mean (perhaps obviously) a certain frequency of character deaths, new characters joining the party, etc.  In these cases the difference of whether this death comes about from player choice or from dice rolling doesn't matter AFAICT.  When you say it's "different", I don't know in what relevant ways you mean that it's different.  Getting killed by an orc is different than being killed by an ogre, for example.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I then went on to suggest that, in resource-attrition play, poor decisions can also increase the risk of death. You responded by agreeing, I think, but pointing out that this may not happen until enconter N+X. I agreed, but noted that the great the value of X, the greater the number of encounters that are interesting only for their resource-management implications, and for certain play styles at least this is not all that interesting.




I think this is where play-style really has a hidden influence on our opinions.  My players are far more likely to take resource attrition, and therefore all encounters, seriously because they know that the effects can actually kill them.  My informal assessment here is that many per-encounter folks don't kill PCs, and the players know this, and it diminishes the significance that less-than-deadly encounters have.  After all, the PCs want to get to the BBEG, the DM wants them to get there, and everything else really just becomes a formality and a nuisance.

Recall, too, that encounters are interesting for reasons other than resource-management implications.  AFAICT this is actually one of the basic assumptions in support for per-encounter.  So all those story based and tactical issues that make per-encounter interesting are also available for per-day.  I can have rope bridges over lava, NPC captives with plot-relevant information, McGuffins needed to defeat the BBEG, and all the rest in a per-day situation as well, enhancing the meaning of an encounter which also has resource implications.  I know we sometimes remove all of these things because they're not unique to a given paradigm, but then it seems misleading to then remove attrition and say that the result is boring - of course, removing all elements of an encounter that are interesting results in a boring encounter.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I asked only becase per-encounter resources are likely to make combat more complex, and thus take longer, and therefore the number of encounters per unit of playing time is likely to drop, and thus the increase in poor-play deadliness per encounter, which I agree is there, will probably be greater than the increase in deadliness per unit of playing time.




I really hope not - 3E combat takes too long as it is.  I don't know why exactly, but based on what I've seen on this board I'm not the only one.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Btw, I don't think that plot-driven play is linear in the way you describe. You seem to be talking about rail-roading. I'm talking about player-driven play. But that's really a side issue - what is important is that (as far as I can tell) we seem largely to be on the same page about the relationship between resource-management rules and play style.




AFAICT, it is at the root of a statement than "resource management interferes with the game plot".  I don't know what everyone means when they say "plot".  When I say that, I mean two things - one is "the overall structure of likely events" and the other is "the story about what transpired in the game".  Resource management, and unanticipated situations in general, do not interfere with either one of these.


----------



## shilsen

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Reading things written in absolute terms always sets off alarm bells to me.  If you were speaking "purely" about your game, then what reason would you have to make universal statements?
> 
> ...
> 
> Now I don't see anything about "your game" in this statement.  Since it's about resource attrition, which you supposedly don't use in your game, then it actually cannot be about your game.  In fact, your statements above seemed to ping-pong back and forth between your personal experiences and universal ones.




Here's what I originally posted (bolded for emphasis):

"Actually, *I meant boring from my POV as the DM* (though generally as a player I find adventures based heavily around resource attrition boring too). Challenging PCs via resource attrition means the individual encounters don't have to be challenging on their own merits, but can simply soak up some resources and weaken the PCs for the next encounter, which can soak up some more resources, and so on. *For me as a DM*, that kind of thing is boring to run."

I thought those phrases were enough to indicate that I was referring to personal taste. Evidently not.  



> I interpreted "just right" to mean "just right" in terms of *something* because without that *something* the phrase means nothing to me.  "Worse" was meant in that context.  Now apparently "just right" doesn't mean anything comprehensible to any individual who is not you or your players.




I spelled out what "just right" means to me in an earlier post. Whether that's comprehensible to you or not is, well, an issue for you.



> What does "trouble" mean in a game without death?  Wedgies for all?  Action points loss?




As I'd expanded on earlier, and as Mallus pointed out above, "trouble" can mean a whole host of things. It can mean the loss of something important to the PCs, the using up or destruction of valuable equipment or magic, their inability to achieve a particular goal, their inability to prevent an enemy from achieving a particular goal, their defeat and/or capture, etc.


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Is there any _absolute_ loss, though, or do you just get to try to find the Grail and overthrow the king another time?
> 
> If, once you've failed the Grail Quest, you don't get another shot at it, then I'd agree that the game without death has equal (or perhaps greater) stakes than the game with death.  Of course, if death is easily undone, then the game with death doesn't have very high stakes either.




*Absolute* loss is a matter of definition, isn't it? After all, even in a game with irrevocable death, presumably the player creates a new PC and keeps playing, so arguably that's not an absolute loss.


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> *Absolute* loss is a matter of definition, isn't it? After all, even in a game with irrevocable death, presumably the player creates a new PC and keeps playing, so arguably that's not an absolute loss.




If the game is structured so that progress occurs during the course of successful adventuring, i.e., 1+1+2+3+1+5, then anything that negates that progress is IMHO an absolute loss, i.e., 1+1+2, followed by death, either equals 4, upon which +3+1+5 can then follow, or it does not.

If there is a sequence of adventures, each with a value of 1, and death resets you to 0, then death includes an absolute loss, as when two players experience 20 adventures, the one who died in the 15th has a sum total of 5, while the one who did not die has 20.

In many games, there is an XP and/or level penalty when replacing a PC due to death.  This is intended, AFAICT, to make some form of absolute loss occur with death.  Of course, as I am sure _*diaglo*_ can tell you, when you die in OD&D, your next character begins at level 1.

RC


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is true.  I think that what is essential is to make resting/not resting an interesting choice, because it is a choice with consequences both good and not-so-good.  IMHO, More Relevant Player Choices + Wider Range of Player Choices + Context + Consequence = Better Game.
> 
> 
> Well, there is this difference, too.  I believe that the story is what happens _as a result of_ player choices and their consequences.  I don't believe that it is generally appropriate for the DM to try to "force" a plan of "what will happen".
> 
> RC





Then you would have no problems with a storyline that resulted in TPK because the party used their resources inappropriately _because of poor luck_  and there is no story-appropriate point for them to rest? IE, the targets made improbably lucky saves, or the damage/healing spells ended up resulting in improbably low HP output, etc. Because right now, if you have to use up as little as %5 extra resources over each encounter, and you are following the guideline of 4 encounters per adventuring day, the last encounter the party is seriously understrength for. On the other hand, if they had to use 5% less of their daily resources due to good luck or planning, they are significantly overstrength for that last encounter.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I have never understood, though this is a long standing issue, how an encounter that poses no risk to a PC (of either resource loss or loss of life) is of any mechanical interest. (I realize that an earlier example about your students attempted to show this, but I didn't quite get it.)
> 
> Maybe try with this extreme example. 4 20th level characters against 4 standard kobolds. The 20th level characters are at full power, and so they have a huge range of abilities to exercise. There's no chance of PC death. And we'll say there's no resource expenditure issues since it's the only encounter that day (and it probably doesn't even require that). My question is: how can you make this an encounter of "mechanical interest"? If this is a bad example, then why? What fundamental difference is there with any other encounter where PCs know they're going to win and know that there is no impact on their daily resources?



Story. the encounter can threaten something important to the character even if it doesn't threaten them directly, or it can threaten their ability to complete their mission without necessarily threatening the PCs life, limb, or resources.
IE, if one kobold is holding the only copy of the Necronomicon over the Pit of Despair, it doesn't matter than the kobolds have no chance of hurting any of the PCs, and that the PCs can utterly destroy the kobolds without breaking a sweat. He is a mechanically interesting challenge, in that you have to deploy the party to stop him from tossing the book into the pit; but he is no direct threat to the life or resources of the party, and they may in fact be able to stop him without using expendable resources (diplomacy, grapple, what-have-you).

Or replace the book with a hostage not of significance to the PCs directly (the maiden sacrifice from a nearby village, etc).


----------



## Raven Crowking

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I have never understood, though this is a long standing issue, how an encounter that poses no risk to a PC (of either resource loss or loss of life) is of any mechanical interest.




This has been asked, in many different ways, dozens of times.  I am interested to see an actual answer.



> Maybe try with this extreme example.  4 20th level characters against 4 standard kobolds.  The 20th level characters are at full power, and so they have a huge range of abilities to exercise.  There's no chance of PC death.  And we'll say there's no resource expenditure issues since it's the only encounter that day (and it probably doesn't even require that).  My question is:  how can you make this an encounter of "mechanical interest"?




This was first asked, I believe, with a 10th level fighter and 4 goblins.  I am interested to see an actual answer.



> If this is a bad example, then why?  What fundemental difference is there with any other encounter where PCs know they're going to win and know that there is no impact on their daily resources?




This has been asked before, too.  I am interested to see an actual answer.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Then you would have no problems with a storyline that resulted in TPK because the party used their resources inappropriately _because of poor luck_  and there is no story-appropriate point for them to rest?




Not as a player; not as a DM.

Sometimes it is better for the party to realize that it can't stop the kobold holding the only copy of the Necronomicon over the Pit of Despair.  In that case, it's better to get out while you've still got some oomph.

IMHO, the DM should never set the stakes of an adventure so that he is unwilling to accept the consequences of the PCs failing.....or simply choosing not to act.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This has been asked, in many different ways, dozens of times.  I am interested to see an actual answer.
> 
> 
> 
> This was first asked, I believe, with a 10th level fighter and 4 goblins.  I am interested to see an actual answer.
> 
> 
> 
> This has been asked before, too.  I am interested to see an actual answer.
> 
> 
> RC



Honestly, RC, the reason I stopped replying to this thread was questions like this. I thought I made it quite clear that you can still have an interesting, exciting encounter where the primary measure of importance isn't the resources which are expended/lost. You suggest otherwise.

There is a WORLD of difference between a 10th level fighter and four goblins (where there is, presumably, no challenge at all) and the encounter I ran in M&M just last night where the PCs were left after the encounter in _exactly_ the same state, mechanically, they were before. Since you seem to equate the 10th level fighter and four goblins with _any_ encounter where resource expenditure is minimized, I pose the following challenge to you:

Please tell me how the six rounds of combat, where the PCs were forced to contend with a water ninja's obscure effect, the Hellfire-controlling PC almost taking himself out of the fight when he stabbed an alternate-universe version of himself in the soul, federal agents stunning and trapping a shrinking hero in a specimen jar, and a squad of soldiers taking one of the heroes prisoner temporarily was of no "mechanical interest".

Please tell me how the Big Bad Evil Guy rolling so well for the first four rounds that he didn't take any damage, as well as one federal agent who took an absurd amount of punishment for those early rounds (again rolling extremely well), leaving the PCs seriously wondering whether or not they could win the fight, especially when an NPC psychic with them was rolling so poorly that he might as well not have been there (he couldn't hit the broad side of an anything) was of no "mechanical interest".

Please tell me how the enemies upending lab benches to use for cover to thwart the PC blasters' attacks, volatile chemicals exploding and harming PC and NPC alike, and the MacGuffin both groups were after (a rare primate) sitting in the middle of all of this chaos with his piddly +1 toughness save modifier was of no "mechanical interest".

The PCs were going through hero points, alright, but they were gaining them like crazy too, thanks to unforseen complications arising constantly (one PC fighting her archenemy, another having to fight his alternate self, a third being trapped in a lead-lined specimen container that blocked her powers). Indeed, even the luck controller (who by design must spend oodles of hero points) wound up right back to where he started after the fight, when an NPC snuck away with a box containing material which could be used to blackmail him.

Please tell me how this encounter was of no "mechanical significance".

And most importantly, please make sure your forward your response to my players, who told me that they greatly enjoyed the encounter last night and thought it was great fun. They apparently need to know that their encounter had no "mechanical significance", and that they should have simply ticked off resources instead and skipped the encounter. That's what you do with things that are insignificant, right?


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Is there any _absolute_ loss, though, or do you just get to try to find the Grail and overthrow the king another time?



If the PC's fail to overthrow the king, the storyline changes, the PC's goals shift, and I imagine the characters would then become more heavily invested in getting the hell out of dodge and/or finding a safe haven for the surviving members of the rebellion, perhaps on a fabled lost continent. Now if some great and ancient weapon were found on said lost continent, or perhaps new, mysterious 'allies', then yes, the characters might get another crack at the evil king.  

This is how we roll. Clearer, yes?

RC, removing death from the game isn't about ensuring the players 'win' all the time. It's not about removing challenge. It's tool for _increasing_ player investment in the campaign, by allowing them to hang onto their favorite 'playing piece' (and the attendant storyline that piece is involved in).


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This has been asked, in many different ways, dozens of times.  I am interested to see an actual answer.



re: how can fights without the potential loss of life/resources be mechanically interesting.

RC, I suspect you know the answer to this one. Earlier in the thread you admitted liking Mutants and Masterminds. Did you enjoy the game despite that fact the fact that it offered fights that by your definition where 'mechanically uninteresting'? If so, why did you play, that games all about superhero fightin'?


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IanArgent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would have no problems with a storyline that resulted in TPK because the party used their resources inappropriately because of poor luck and there is no story-appropriate point for them to rest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as a player; not as a DM.
Click to expand...



Really? Through no fault of their own, other than bad dice, the PCs expended more resources than the adventure designer was expecting, and cannot stand up to the final encounter. The adventure designer expected the PCs to be at, say, 50%% of effectiveness, and the previous encounters attritted them harder than the adventure designer expected, so the party is around 25% of effectiveness. or they got lucky and didn't get attritted as much as the adventure designer expected, and they can blow past the encounter because they have much more resources than the designer expected. That's the logical conclusion of your stance - at some point the PCs will hit an inappropriate encounter (either too easy or too hard) if the heavy hitting artillery/support is primarily per-day. Either the PCs are dead/hurting when they shouldn't be, or they blow past an encounter that should have challenged them. 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sometimes it is better for the party to realize that it can't stop the kobold holding the only copy of the Necronomicon over the Pit of Despair.  In that case, it's better to get out while you've still got some oomph.
> 
> IMHO, the DM should never set the stakes of an adventure so that he is unwilling to accept the consequences of the PCs failing.....or simply choosing not to act.
> 
> 
> RC




In this case, it's not the consequences of the adventure, it's the consequences of the _encounter_. With the current setup, you can end up with an encounter that was designed for the PCs to succeed with only moderate effort expended, but since (for whatever reason) they don't have the right resources available (expended earlier in the day because of poor dice, say) they have no chance of success.

But to avoid that, you set up an encounter that doesn't require them to have any particular per-day resource, the presence or lack thereof of that resource is unimportant.

The current system can fail _both_ ways, the same encounter can be either too easy, or too hard, depending on the "path" the party took to get to that point. By itself, changing the primary resource management level to per-encounter, this isn't fixed - but it is an _example_ of the ame design theory going into 4ed to prevent this problem. There is a post today from Chris Thomasson:


			
				WotC_Thomasson said:
			
		

> I kind of botched the first encounter we tested, to be honest, even though I almost gakked the rogue. I should have added another bandit to the encounter. That's the beauty of running in 4th for the DM. Scaling encounters is incredibly easy. I mean, you can actually take a balanced encounter, scale it up or down on the fly (as in, crack open your MM and pick a monster of the appropriate level), and still have a balanced encounter. I just forgot. I'm still approaching encounters with a 3E mindset, at times. But I'm getting better each session.




Every time it comes up on the dev blogs, the "workload" of DMs is being decreased, the "target" for adventure designers is being tightened up so that the adventure designer doesn't have to guess at the party's current capability, and the on-the-fly tweakability is being made easier. The mechanics are being made more predictable, so that the "variability" can be in the RP side of things.


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If the game is structured so that progress occurs during the course of successful adventuring, i.e., 1+1+2+3+1+5, then anything that negates that progress is IMHO an absolute loss, i.e., 1+1+2, followed by death, either equals 4, upon which +3+1+5 can then follow, or it does not.




This may explain why you have to repeat yourself so often. You're spending way too much space and time coming up with weirdly inappropriate terminology that does nothing to advance an argument. I'd recommend sticking with English. 



> If there is a sequence of adventures, each with a value of 1, and death resets you to 0, then death includes an absolute loss, as when two players experience 20 adventures, the one who died in the 15th has a sum total of 5, while the one who did not die has 20.




Do players actually die in your campaign? If not, I'd say that the two players both experience 20 adventures. The one whose PC died in the 15th experiences the last 5 with a new PC, so he still experiences the same adventures as the other player, except he does so with different PCs. Hardly an absolute loss.



> In many games, there is an XP and/or level penalty when replacing a PC due to death.  This is intended, AFAICT, to make some form of absolute loss occur with death.  Of course, as I am sure _*diaglo*_ can tell you, when you die in OD&D, your next character begins at level 1.




Absolute loss would be not getting to take part at all. An XP and/or level penalty is a relative loss, since you lose the original character, but get a new one to play with. See why I mean it's a matter of definition?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Honestly, RC, the reason I stopped replying to this thread was questions like this. I thought I made it quite clear that you can still have an interesting, exciting encounter where the primary measure of importance isn't the resources which are expended/lost. You suggest otherwise.




And I submit, respectfully, that it should therefore be quite easy for you to answer Gizmo33's questions.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> RC, removing death from the game isn't about ensuring the players 'win' all the time. It's not about removing challenge.




I didn't say it was; If you look back, you will see that I said "If, once you've failed the Grail Quest, you don't get another shot at it, then I'd agree that the game without death has equal (or perhaps greater) stakes than the game with death."


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And I submit, respectfully, that it should therefore be quite easy for you to answer Gizmo33's questions.
> 
> RC



And I submit, respectfully, that I just did in the post I just made. I'll post it again.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> There is a WORLD of difference between a 10th level fighter and four goblins (where there is, presumably, no challenge at all) and the encounter I ran in M&M just last night where the PCs were left after the encounter in _exactly_ the same state, mechanically, they were before. Since you seem to equate the 10th level fighter and four goblins with _any_ encounter where resource expenditure is minimized, I pose the following challenge to you:
> 
> Please tell me how the six rounds of combat, where the PCs were forced to contend with a water ninja's obscure effect, the Hellfire-controlling PC almost taking himself out of the fight when he stabbed an alternate-universe version of himself in the soul, federal agents stunning and trapping a shrinking hero in a specimen jar, and a squad of soldiers taking one of the heroes prisoner temporarily was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> Please tell me how the Big Bad Evil Guy rolling so well for the first four rounds that he didn't take any damage, as well as one federal agent who took an absurd amount of punishment for those early rounds (again rolling extremely well), leaving the PCs seriously wondering whether or not they could win the fight, especially when an NPC psychic with them was rolling so poorly that he might as well not have been there (he couldn't hit the broad side of an anything) was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> Please tell me how the enemies upending lab benches to use for cover to thwart the PC blasters' attacks, volatile chemicals exploding and harming PC and NPC alike, and the MacGuffin both groups were after (a rare primate) sitting in the middle of all of this chaos with his piddly +1 toughness save modifier was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> The PCs were going through hero points, alright, but they were gaining them like crazy too, thanks to unforseen complications arising constantly (one PC fighting her archenemy, another having to fight his alternate self, a third being trapped in a lead-lined specimen container that blocked her powers). Indeed, even the luck controller (who by design must spend oodles of hero points) wound up right back to where he started after the fight, when an NPC snuck away with a box containing material which could be used to blackmail him.
> 
> Please tell me how this encounter was of no "mechanical significance".
> 
> And most importantly, please make sure your forward your response to my players, who told me that they greatly enjoyed the encounter last night and thought it was great fun. They apparently need to know that their encounter had no "mechanical significance", and that they should have simply ticked off resources instead and skipped the encounter. That's what you do with things that are insignificant, right?


----------



## Mallus

shilsen said:
			
		

> I'd recommend sticking with English.



But then we'd miss out on the cool Timecube vibe we've been getting from RC's arguments.



> Absolute loss would be not getting to take part at all.



Heh, I was thinking that the only 'absolute loss' would be scrapping the campaign in favor of a poker night.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I have never understood, though this is a long standing issue, how an encounter that poses no risk to a PC (of either resource loss or loss of life) is of any mechanical interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been asked, in many different ways, dozens of times.  I am interested to see an actual answer.
Click to expand...


1) If "mechanical interest" means only in the rules (and not in the story), which I assume it does: 
I agree, you're right, the encounter can't be of mechanical interest. If that's all what you wanted to hear, stop reading right here*. 

2)
If that wasn't enough yet, I also agree that any mechanic that includes a daily resource concept can guarantee that the 9:00 to 9:15 adventure will not happen. (Happy now, stop reading!)


2) But I think there is still a considerable margin for improvement if we lessen the impact of these daily resources on the total resources for each encounter. The 9:00 to 9:15 is an extremist example. Often enough, people will probably last a bit longer in the dungeon (maybe 2 hours?) and have more than one encounter. Which means there is the willingness for a little risk. But even 2 hours are ridiculous as long as resetting resources requires 8 hours of rest and for some characters a new morning/evening. The in-game time (not real world play time) balance between rest and action is way off...

1) If the game is not just about the mechanics, it is also about the story that is told as part of the game. So, even if the players are guaranteed to survive, don't lose any resources, an encounter can still be interesting to the game. 

And the question is also: Is an encounter actually interesting just because it has the mechanical impact of costing resources? 

That depends probably a lot on personal preference and the situation at hand, but for me most of the time, only the "potentially deadly" encounters (discounting the ones where other goals than survival are important) are really interesting. 
The only other reason they could interesting is because you get to wonder "Did I use to many resources, so the next encounter will become more dangerous and pose a threat to  my characters survival?". But this interest is not an immediate part of the current encounter. Now, if you're not such an "instant-gratification" kind of player/DM as me, that might be enough. But I think there are many people that want the interesting things to happen now, and not be hinted at for later. ("Maybe later it's getting more interesting wether I should have fireballed the Ogres...")

*)and if your daughter allows, you might even get to sleep. Though I have no idea what time it is when you read it. For me, it's evening. 
PS: I just recognize that this *) thingy is mean because I wrote "..stop reading right here." Sorry for that...


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Really? Through no fault of their own, other than bad dice, the PCs expended more resources than the adventure designer was expecting, and cannot stand up to the final encounter.




Do you teach your children that, if they land on a slide in Snakes & Ladders, that they get to just reroll?

In any event, I think you place too much emphasis on the designer.  I am not personally interested in any game, as player or DM, where the PCs are forced to go along with what the designer thought they should do (even if - perhaps especially if - that designer is me).

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> This may explain why you have to repeat yourself so often. You're spending way too much space and time coming up with weirdly inappropriate terminology that does nothing to advance an argument. I'd recommend sticking with English.





I attempted that.  Some wanker didn't know what "absolute loss" meant.    

(And I am very tired right now.  At least I don't have to drive my son back from Canada's Wonderland at Godawful Early in the morning again tonight.....)

RC


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Do you teach your children that, if they land on a slide in Snakes & Ladders, that they get to just reroll?




I don't have children yet. At any rate, I've never liked Chutes & Ladders for exactly that reason. I don't care for pure-random mechanics in games, certainly not in RPGs. I know, in reality, crap happens. In a story, crap happens, in the end, for a reason. Even in a Tom Clancy novel (the king, IMO, of random occurrence), the "random" occurrences drive the plot.

That having been said, I'm fine with the PCs derailing the plot, as long as it doesn't impact the ability to tell a story that's fun for all participants.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In any event, I think you place too much emphasis on the designer.  I am not personally interested in any game, as player or DM, where the PCs are forced to go along with what the designer thought they should do (even if - perhaps especially if - that designer is me).
> 
> RC




I'm not arguing that the designer should have the whip hand in adventures. In some ways I want the exact opposite. I want a game that someone who is unfamiliar with the capabilities and intentions of my party can design an adventure, that I can take, off the shelf, and run with no more prep than reading it through once, and have that adventure be fun, exciting, and "correct" for my party. If I can't have that, I want a system where I can correct "on-the-fly" for "incorrect" encounters/monsters/etc. 

Onc eyou have a solid foundation, you can build what you want on it. Right now, 3.5 does not have that solid foundation - the design is too ad-hoc, too dependent on the DM having time to prep, and too dependent, quite frankly, on the DM being overly competent. I have a _lot_ harder time running a D&D adventure from a module than I do running SR off the top of my head. To a certain extent, I have a harder time running a module in D&D than I do running an adventure off the top of my head - and that's not a good thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> *)and if your daughter allows, you might even get to sleep. Though I have no idea what time it is when you read it. For me, it's evening.
> PS: I just recognize that this *) thingy is mean because I wrote "..stop reading right here." Sorry for that...





MR, I think that I agree with everything you wrote.  I'll go over it again when I'm less foggy.    

So, get this:  My youngest girl?  Cold that wakes her up with wracking coughs every few hours.  She sleeps in our bed.  My partner?  She has the same cold, so she's tired, and when I get home I can't just shuff everything onto her.  Me?  Same cold, lesser degree, but still tiring.  My eldest?  Working at Canada's Wonderland Horror Haunt (formerly Fearfest) as a scarer, gets off around 10 pm (soon to be 12 or later), needs a lift back to the city.  About 1 1/2-2 hours round trip.  

No wonder I look like this:    

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> I don't care for pure-random mechanics in games, certainly not in RPGs.




You might be happier with a diceless game.  I hear that 6e might be diceless.    



> I want a game that someone who is unfamiliar with the capabilities and intentions of my party can design an adventure, that I can take, off the shelf, and run with no more prep than reading it through once, and have that adventure be fun, exciting, and "correct" for my party. If I can't have that, I want a system where I can correct "on-the-fly" for "incorrect" encounters/monsters/etc.




Have you tried 1e AD&D?  


RC


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You might be happier with a diceless game.  I hear that 6e might be diceless.
> 
> RC




I misspoke myself. I should have said - I don't like pure-random game systems. I want a certain amount of uncertainly in my games; but I don't like when the random noise drowns out deliberate action.

So I want dice, but the results of the dice alone should not dictate success or failure _by themselves_. The PCs need to play smart; and if they take a gamble, they could get punished for it, but I don't like situations where the result is literally based on the roll of the dice. I don't like Save or Die for just that reason.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

To bring something back from a long, long time ago ...



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> However, from what we have:
> 
> If the wizard (or insert Class X) has enough wizardy things to do every round, he will not use up his best wizardy resources as quickly, and consequently will not cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem.​
> Are we on the same page so far?




You keep saying "best."

I vehemently oppose your usage of that word, because I can see the trap you're leading me into, and, frankly, I refuse to step into it.

The problem in 3.X (and, frankly, all versions of D&D) is that the wizard who desires to do something wizardly every round doesn't spend his _best_ wizardly resources too quickly; it's that he spends *all* of his wizardly resources too quickly and runs out of *anything* wizardly to do.


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I have never understood, though this is a long standing issue, how an encounter that poses no risk to a PC (of either resource loss or loss of life) is of any mechanical interest.  (I realize that an earlier example about your students attempted to show this, but I didn't quite get it.)



Because I don't know what RPGs you play, I'm not sure what sorts of examples I might give. I'll try one non-RPG example, and then an RPG example.

From time-to-time I play collectible card games with a friend of mine - Middle-Earth: The Wizards (ICE) and LoTR (Decipher). My friend was once the Australian MTG champion, so is a better CCG-player than I am. But as it happens I tend to know the card set for the two Middle-Earth games better than he does, and neither game is prone to come to a sudden and rapid end in the way that MTG is. The result of all this is that, when we play, it is pretty certain that he will win the game. But the win is not "automatic", in the sense that he has to pay attention to the play to bring it off, actually doing the clever things that his level of skill enables him to do. He can thereby derive pleasure from the game - after all, he enjoys doing those clever things with cards - even though there is little likelihood of him losing.

In my experience, the same can be true of an RPG. The main game that I GM is RM. This is a game which, for figthers, involves making a decision about allocating attack vs parry in each round, and about how to deploy Adrenal Moves (which work as a sort of per-encounter resource, as I explained in an earlier post). Very often my players' characters find themselves in fights which they have little chance of losing, _provided that_ they make the correct decisions about attack/parry split and Adrenal Move use. To make those decisions requires information about their opponents - attack strength, armour and other defence strength, etc - which is itself often acquired only during the combat. The result of this is that a typical combat plays out as quite suspenseful for the first round or two, as the players get a sense of what sort of foes they are up against and how they should best respond, and then as an exercise in ruthless efficiency for the next round or two, as the players win the combat through deploying winning tactics. This is a source of pleasure in play - my players are the sort of game players who get pleasure from playing a game well - although typically there is little doubt about the outcome.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> A game design/paradigm that produces an X% of PC death per encounter is going to mean (perhaps obviously) a certain frequency of character deaths, new characters joining the party, etc.  In these cases the difference of whether this death comes about from player choice or from dice rolling doesn't matter AFAICT.  When you say it's "different", I don't know in what relevant ways you mean that it's different.



A subsidiary point to make here is that RM has a series of mechanical features (a very deep resevoir of hits between unconsciousness and death, the existence of Life Keeping spells to stop soul departure, etc) so that being taken out in a combat doesn't necessarily result in character death.

But the main point is that it makes a big difference to a game, in my experience, whether the value of X in your "X%" is a function of player skill or not. In a set of mechanics where the only option is to park one's PC next to the opponent and role full attacks until you win or lose, the value of X will be largely a function of the numbers. This can give rise to the same sort of interest that a lottery does, but I wouldn't see it as mechanical interest of any deep sort. But if X is a funciton of player skill - so that the best player can push X very close to zero - then the game becomes one which rewards skill, encourages group play (as the better players give the less-skilled players advice on how to optimise a situation) and is, at least in my experience, generally fun to play.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Maybe try with this extreme example.  4 20th level characters against 4 standard kobolds.  The 20th level characters are at full power, and so they have a huge range of abilities to exercise.  There's no chance of PC death.  And we'll say there's no resource expenditure issues since it's the only encounter that day (and it probably doesn't even require that).  My question is:  how can you make this an encounter of "mechanical interest"?  If this is a bad example, then why?  What fundemental difference is there with any other encounter where PCs know they're going to win and know that there is no impact on their daily resources?



In no edition of D&D do I think that this example can be made interesting in the sense I have described above. In 1st ed, the 20th level fighter closes and kills the kobolds automatically in 1 round, barring natural 1s (because s/he gets 20 attacks per round against 1/2 hit dice creatures). In 3rd ed, its much the same, assuming the fighter has either whirlwind attack or great cleave.

In RM the encounter can be more interesting, because the players have to choose between killing all the kobolds in the first round - and thus facing some risk of suffering real damage - or playing it completely safe, facing no risk of damage unless the kobolds roll open-ended high, but perhaps taking more than one round to kill the kobolds.

But even in RM I don't think it is a particularly good example. 4 20th level characters against 4 Stone Giants might be better, because at that point the ways in which different choices about how the encounter is approached affect the outcome (particularly in terms of the trade-off between speed of resolution and risk run) start to become more complex, and hence more interesting.

My expectation is that 4e, by giving each player a wider range of choices to make in terms of resource-deployment (because fighters will have some, and wizards will have more), will make D&D play (in general, abstract terms) more like my RM example than like current D&D. The way that an encounter unfolds will be more highly dependent on player decisions, and those decisions will be more complex and so require more thought by players. This experience of engaging in a complex activity will be (for some players, at least) interesting.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 3E combat takes too long as it is.



Of course I may be wrong, but my prediction is that 4e encounters will, if anything, take longer to play because of the greater number and complexity of decisions that the players will have to make. (Though apparently it will be easier for the GM, and that might compensate to some extent.)



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> My players are far more likely to take resource attrition, and therefore all encounters, seriously because they know that the effects can actually kill them.



I know by "them" you don't really mean "your players" but rather "their PCs". Nevertheless, I think this is telling, because it suggests a high degree of expectation, in your game, that the player's experience will mirror that of the PCs - for example, that a setback for the PCs is also a setback for the players. Not all RPGs unfold that way - in some games, a setback for a PC can be a reward for the player, in the sense that it can be a source of fun and pleasure in playing the game. This latter sort of player is, I think, less likely to care for playing out the sort of logistical matters to which operational play gives rise.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think that what is essential is to make resting/not resting an interesting choice, because it is a choice with consequences both good and not-so-good.  IMHO, More Relevant Player Choices + Wider Range of Player Choices + Context + Consequence = Better Game.



For those play groups who do not enjoy operational play, what makes not resting an interesting choice is that they find resting tedious to play out. They don't want to specify a camp site, a watch regime, etc. Not wanting to do this, they don't, and proceed even though they are (perhaps) at less than full resources.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> My informal assessment here is that many per-encounter folks don't kill PCs, and the players know this, and it diminishes the significance that less-than-deadly encounters have.  After all, the PCs want to get to the BBEG, the DM wants them to get there, and everything else really just becomes a formality and a nuisance.[/quote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any _absolute_ loss, though, or do you just get to try to find the Grail and overthrow the king another time?
> 
> If, once you've failed the Grail Quest, you don't get another shot at it, then I'd agree that the game without death has equal (or perhaps greater) stakes than the game with death.  Of course, if death is easily undone, then the game with death doesn't have very high stakes either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not every RPGer believes that adversity for the PC should be adversity for the player. After all, many players experience adversity in other parts of their life - they play games for pleasure. So, if the PCs don't die but don't get the Grail, the consequent unfolding of the plot is itself a source of interest and pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you teach your children that, if they land on a slide in Snakes & Ladders, that they get to just reroll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, of course, I can keep playing even if I fall down a ladder. Thus, adversity for my game-piece isn't adversity for me.
> 
> Of course, the pleasure of snakes and ladders is essentially that of gambling. It is not the sort of complex pleasure that RPGs offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gizmo33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all those story based and tactical issues that make per-encounter interesting are also available for per-day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have argued against this in many posts. First, the same tactical issues are _not_ there, because in a pure per-day system the PCs just don't have as many resources to use, and so don't have as many choices to make with respect to them. Second, because in a per-day system the PCs can't continue to engage meaningfully with the world when they are out of resources, the mechanics impose a limit on the amount of engagement per day that is possible, which limit may (from the point of view of the plot and theme the players want) may be meaningless and therefore undesirable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patryn of Elvenshae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem in 3.X (and, frankly, all versions of D&D) is that the wizard who desires to do something wizardly every round doesn't spend his _best_ wizardly resources too quickly; it's that he spends *all* of his wizardly resources too quickly and runs out of *anything* wizardly to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The wizard runs out of things to do. This can get in the way of playing out the scenario that the players want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is this difference, too.  I believe that the story is what happens _as a result of_ player choices and their consequences.  I don't believe that it is generally appropriate for the DM to try to "force" a plan of "what will happen".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gizmo33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what everyone means when they say "plot".  When I say that, I mean two things - one is "the overall structure of likely events" and the other is "the story about what transpired in the game".  Resource management, and unanticipated situations in general, do not interfere with either one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some games the plot is not simply "what happens". It is what the players _want_ to have happen, and are setting about to make happen. Of course resource management doesn't get in the way of things happening. Suppose the players want, first, to fight the gate guards, then to sneak through the corridors into the throne room, then to free the king from the control of his evil vizier. This plot is obviously pretty bog-standard for a fantasy RPG, but a system of pure per-day resources can be an obstacle to this, because it may be that all the spells get used first fighting the guards and then turning invisible to sneak through the palace. Which should take precedence for this group of players - their desire to play out this particular scenario, or a mechanical system of pure per-day resources? I don't see why the first should have to yield.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, the DM should never set the stakes of an adventure so that he is unwilling to accept the consequences of the PCs failing.....or simply choosing not to act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many games it is the players, rather than the GM, who set the stakes of the adventure. In that sort of game the PCs are unlikely to choose not to act - as the players will choose to act in pursuit of the stakes that they have chosen.
> 
> There is a way of playing D&D which is (in my view) best articulated by Lewis Pulsipher's articles in early numbers of White Dwarf and Dragon. This is a game of resource attrition and operational play. he gameworld with which the PCs interact is almost entirely the construction of the GM, and it is there primarily as a source of adversity for the PCs. The 1st ed AD&D dungeon is the paradigm. In this approach to play, if the PCs get held up then NPCs will steal the loot; if the PCs rest for too long the adventure can come to an end, or become impossible for them to undertake. For some D&D players this _is_ D&D, and even RPGing in general.
> 
> But may RPGers don't want to play this way. For those players, the PCs are the vehicles though which they engage in the gameworld to have fun. That fun can have all sorts of mechanical, thematic and other sorts of complexity - it need not be "video-gamey" instant gratification, nor super-hero/Exalted in flavour. For this approach to play, the gameworld is not just a source of adversity, but the site of thematic and other sorts of exploration. But to work at its best this approach requires players to have meaningful things to do in every turn of an encounter, and it requires mechanics that mean that adversity for a PC does not mean simply a loss of playing pleasure for the player (such mechanics are obviously difficult to come up with, but certain sorts of Fate Point systems are examples). On this approach to play, pure per-day resources do not help, and can indeed get in the way.
Click to expand...


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> I misspoke myself. I should have said - I don't like pure-random game systems. I want a certain amount of uncertainly in my games; but I don't like when the random noise drowns out deliberate action.
> 
> So I want dice, but the results of the dice alone should not dictate success or failure _by themselves_. The PCs need to play smart; and if they take a gamble, they could get punished for it, but I don't like situations where the result is literally based on the roll of the dice. I don't like Save or Die for just that reason.




I honestly have never seen a D&D game where a PC got killed without any decision-making that led there.  I am sure that there are DMs who roll on the Wandering Damage chart, or who make it impossible to gain enough information to at least guess what a reasonable course of action might be.  I just think that those are DM problems, not system problems.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You keep saying "best."
> 
> I vehemently oppose your usage of that word, because I can see the trap you're leading me into, and, frankly, I refuse to step into it.
> 
> The problem in 3.X (and, frankly, all versions of D&D) is that the wizard who desires to do something wizardly every round doesn't spend his _best_ wizardly resources too quickly; it's that he spends *all* of his wizardly resources too quickly and runs out of *anything* wizardly to do.





Take the fighter build.  Include equipment called "Arcane Strike Wand" otherwise equal to a sword.  Include equipment called "Athame" that is otherwise equal to a bow.  Make them wizard-only weapons, and do not let the wizard use sword or bow.  Call the class "wizard".  There.  Now you can do so something wizardy every round, and you are absolutely equal to a fighter of the same level.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Take the fighter build.  Include equipment called "Arcane Strike Wand" otherwise equal to a sword.  Include equipment called "Athame" that is otherwise equal to a bow.  Make them wizard-only weapons, and do not let the wizard use sword or bow.  Call the class "wizard".  There.  Now you can do so something wizardy every round, and you are absolutely equal to a fighter of the same level.



Honestly, I think the solution is not that horrible as it might seem. Except you should probably add a few more distinctions so nobody notices it that fast. 

But what are really wizardy things? Is it just dealing damage to foes?
D&D 4 seems to indicate there is more to it, and that it is not even the most important thing - he is the "Arcane Controller". 
So, instead of having something to damage every round, he has something to control every round.
Maybe a "At Will"-Distract enemies ability. Or a once per encounter "Create a wall around a group of enemies for a few rounds". Or a At Will "create difficult terrain"-ability. Or a once per encounter "Dominiate this enemy as long as you concentrate", "Turn your ally invisible"-once per encounter. Sure, some damage dealer abilities might be among them, but it's not the focus.

These are all things the fighter (Martial Defender?) can't do. But do they have to be limited to "once per day" to make such a wizard unique from the fighter? Or is this once per day thing just there to balance the "Save or Die"-attacks or the "deal massive damage to many opponents at once" effect against the fighters "attack each round and deal moderate to much amount of damage to a single foe while taking similar amounts of damage from the foe so that nobody else gets the damage"?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think the solution is not that horrible as it might seem. Except you should probably add a few more distinctions so nobody notices it that fast.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> These are all things the fighter (Martial Defender?) can't do.




Ah, but if you are going to give Class A flexability compared to Class B, then Class B must get something to compensate, right?  So, if Class A gets flexability and unlimited resources, and Class B gets no flexability and unlimited resources, there's going to be a problem.

The solution, of course, is to simply drop the fighter as "unfun".  Perhaps we can replace him with some form of Wuxia character that has both flexability and unlimited resources.....say a spell-casting warmage?

Of course, then you need to worry about giving the warmage better armour and attacks than the wizard.  Perhaps we should just drop the wizard altogether as "unfun".  If we fold rogue skills and healing into the Warmage, we won't need any other class.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

pemerton said:
			
		

> But may RPGers don't want to play this way. For those players, the PCs are the vehicles though which they engage in the gameworld to have fun. That fun can have all sorts of mechanical, thematic and other sorts of complexity - it need not be "video-gamey" instant gratification, nor super-hero/Exalted in flavour. For this approach to play, the gameworld is not just a source of adversity, but the site of thematic and other sorts of exploration. But to work at its best this approach requires players to have meaningful things to do in every turn of an encounter, and it requires mechanics that mean that adversity for a PC does not mean simply a loss of playing pleasure for the player (such mechanics are obviously difficult to come up with, but certain sorts of Fate Point systems are examples). On this approach to play, pure per-day resources do not help, and can indeed get in the way.



Absolutely dead-freaking, quoted-for-truth, and thumbsed-up just for emphasis.


----------



## wgreen

All right, here are _my_ thoughts on the whole "15-minute day" thing:  

It seems that there are a few different potential causes for this "early resting" phenomenon.  One is that the PCs are out of resources at that point, and so cannot be reasonably expected to continue adventuring.  That seems to be the one most people have been focusing on in this thread so far.  This also includes the _assumption_ that the players are correct in their self-assessments; I strongly suspect that, in many of these cases, the PCs _could_ continue, and they do in fact have plenty of resources -- they're just out of a certain _kind_ of resource, and that seems like a big deal to them.  Consider a party whose wizard is out of his highest level spells, and pushes for a rest, even though everyone's at full hit points and the wizard still has low- and mid-level spells left.

The other cause I can see is that one or more of the players simply don't _want_ to continue.  Why not?  In some cases, continuing may simply be _boring_.

The players of wizards, in particular, want something not just "wizardly," but _effective_, to do in combat.  Once they're out of high-ish level spells, they have little to do but miss with their crossbows and do inconsequential amounts of damage with low-level spells.  They don't want to "hold back" in early encounters with their flashy spells, and it's not because they're punk kids who need instant gratification, don't know the value of a gold piece, and never had to walk to the dungeon uphill, in the snow, both ways; it's because they're here at the table to _have fun_, and they don't find it fun to sit in the back row twiddling their thumbs while the fighter-types actively change the state of the game world.

So, they let slip their fancy shiny spells, and have a great time, for one or two encounters.  Then they're out of mojo, and, while the party _could_ continue, the player of the wizard is once again faced with the prospect of sitting on his hands for the rest of the day.  So, it's time to camp again.

I do think that per-encounter and at-will resources can help the latter problem.  Wizards will be able to do fun, effective stuff all the time, just like fighters can -- albeit in different ways.  The former problem might be tricker, although I think good design can help that, too.

Anyway, my somewhat rambling two cents.  As you were.  

EDIT:  basically, what pemerton said, but with different words.  Sigh.  Oh well.  

-Will


----------



## Lurks-no-More

pemerton said:
			
		

> I know by "them" you don't really mean "your players" but rather "their PCs". Nevertheless, I think this is telling, because it suggests a high degree of expectation, in your game, that the player's experience will mirror that of the PCs - for example, that a setback for the PCs is also a setback for the players. Not all RPGs unfold that way - in some games, a setback for a PC can be a reward for the player, in the sense that it can be a source of fun and pleasure in playing the game. This latter sort of player is, I think, less likely to care for playing out the sort of logistical matters to which operational play gives rise.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Not every RPGer believes that adversity for the PC should be adversity for the player. After all, many players experience adversity in other parts of their life - they play games for pleasure. So, if the PCs don't die but don't get the Grail, the consequent unfolding of the plot is itself a source of interest and pleasure.



Some of the best D&D sessions and campaigns I've had involved our characters being on the run from a hated enemy, trying desperately to reason their way through the world-breaking prophecy they had found themselves entangled in, and so on. The characters were having a _terrible_ time; the players were having a _terrific_ time.

Of course, if your game is nothing but adversity for the characters, it will soon become boring and frustrating for the players as well; the same goes with constant in-character success.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ah, but if you are going to give Class A flexability compared to Class B, then Class B must get something to compensate, right?  So, if Class A gets flexability and unlimited resources, and Class B gets no flexability and unlimited resources, there's going to be a problem.
> 
> The solution, of course, is to simply drop the fighter as "unfun".  Perhaps we can replace him with some form of Wuxia character that has both flexability and unlimited resources.....say a spell-casting warmage?
> 
> Of course, then you need to worry about giving the warmage better armour and attacks than the wizard.  Perhaps we should just drop the wizard altogether as "unfun".  If we fold rogue skills and healing into the Warmage, we won't need any other class.
> 
> RC



You're sliding down the slippery-slope, RC. "Balanced" doesn't mean "identical". My M&M group is case-in-point of this. We have:

- A psychic ninja who absolutely excells in one-on-one encounters against weak-minded foes.
- A radiation controller who can control her own mass who is the most terrifying grappler in the group, and can generally shut down opponents pretty well and also evade damage like a pro.
- A hellfire wielder who is probably pound-for-pound the biggest damage dealer in the group, with a lot of options for making people go boom; he's got pretty fair damage-evasion abilities.
- An alchemic paragon who is a superb tank and who has some nice versatility in an array of alchemy he can unleash to transmute nearby matter.
- A matter- and energy-shaper who is a fine tank herself but can also warp the battlefield to the order of 100,000 cubic feet of matter per round; she's also the group leader and can boost her allies' saves and attack rolls.

All of these heroes are very different characters, whose powers have completely different applications, each of whom fill different roles in the group. And yet they are (for the most part) balanced with each other, all performing similarly in combat. Sure the hellfire wielder and alchemic paragon have to be more careful when it comes to infiltration (or they can act as distractions very easily). And if it involves taking down a tough opponent with a low will-save, the hellfire wielder and psychic ninja are the best bets. If it requires battlefield control, you really need to turn to the alchemic paragon and the matter-shaper. And for goon-sweeping? Sure, everyone can hack it, but the matter-shaper can manipulate so much matter that she can take out whole army divisions in one round.

"Balanced" does not mean "identical".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> You're sliding down the slippery-slope, RC. "Balanced" doesn't mean "identical". My M&M group is case-in-point of this.




No.  You are absolutely right.  Balanced does not mean identical.

Two classes can be balanced, even though one is a combat machine and the other is not.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No.  You are absolutely right.  Balanced does not mean identical.
> 
> Two classes can be balanced, even though one is a combat machine and the other is not.
> 
> RC



One can be a martial combat machine and the other can be something else. Like an arcane controller 

_EDIT: But seriously, so long as people can do something meaningful and role-appropriate during an enecounter and do so while balanced with one another, then s'allgood._

And since you seem to have missed my earlier reply, I'll post it again.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> There is a WORLD of difference between a 10th level fighter and four goblins (where there is, presumably, no challenge at all) and the encounter I ran in M&M just last night where the PCs were left after the encounter in _exactly_ the same state, mechanically, they were before. Since you seem to equate the 10th level fighter and four goblins with _any_ encounter where resource expenditure is minimized, I pose the following challenge to you:
> 
> Please tell me how the six rounds of combat, where the PCs were forced to contend with a water ninja's obscure effect, the Hellfire-controlling PC almost taking himself out of the fight when he stabbed an alternate-universe version of himself in the soul, federal agents stunning and trapping a shrinking hero in a specimen jar, and a squad of soldiers taking one of the heroes prisoner temporarily was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> Please tell me how the Big Bad Evil Guy rolling so well for the first four rounds that he didn't take any damage, as well as one federal agent who took an absurd amount of punishment for those early rounds (again rolling extremely well), leaving the PCs seriously wondering whether or not they could win the fight, especially when an NPC psychic with them was rolling so poorly that he might as well not have been there (he couldn't hit the broad side of an anything) was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> Please tell me how the enemies upending lab benches to use for cover to thwart the PC blasters' attacks, volatile chemicals exploding and harming PC and NPC alike, and the MacGuffin both groups were after (a rare primate) sitting in the middle of all of this chaos with his piddly +1 toughness save modifier was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> The PCs were going through hero points, alright, but they were gaining them like crazy too, thanks to unforseen complications arising constantly (one PC fighting her archenemy, another having to fight his alternate self, a third being trapped in a lead-lined specimen container that blocked her powers). Indeed, even the luck controller (who by design must spend oodles of hero points) wound up right back to where he started after the fight, when an NPC snuck away with a box containing material which could be used to blackmail him.
> 
> Please tell me how this encounter was of no "mechanical significance".
> 
> And most importantly, please make sure your forward your response to my players, who told me that they greatly enjoyed the encounter last night and thought it was great fun. They apparently need to know that their encounter had no "mechanical significance", and that they should have simply ticked off resources instead and skipped the encounter. That's what you do with things that are insignificant, right?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> One can be a martial combat machine and the other can be something else. Like an arcane controller
> 
> _EDIT: But seriously, so long as people can do something meaningful and role-appropriate during an enecounter and do so while balanced with one another, then s'allgood._




Though we will note, in our examples, the wizard who uses his high-level spells and then wants to rest instead of using his mid- & low-level spells is, in fact, doing _more_ than the fighter in those encounters overall.

While not by any means universal, I imagine that there is a contingent who isn't actually interested in balance -- they want more power, now, and they want no downside to it....even when the downside is only "balanced with everyone else".  Which is why we strangely hear that the wizard blows away the fighter power-wise, and yet strangely hear a call to give the wizard more power to balance him.    



> And since you seem to have missed my earlier reply, I'll post it again.




I didn't miss it, and I am glad you reposted it because it saves me the trouble of trying to find it again.

While what you posted here is undoubtably true, I am not sure how what you posted here actually answers Gizmo33's questions.  This seems more like an (unintentional, I am sure) sidestep of the questions by answering soemthing that wasn't asked.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Though we will note, in our examples, the wizard who uses his high-level spells and then wants to rest instead of using his mid- & low-level spells is, in fact, doing _more_ than the fighter in those encounters overall.
> 
> While not by any means universal, I imagine that there is a contingent who isn't actually interested in balance -- they want more power, now, and they want no downside to it....even when the downside is only "balanced with everyone else".  Which is why we strangely hear that the wizard blows away the fighter power-wise, and yet strangely hear a call to give the wizard more power to balance him.



Wizards are more powerful than fighters now. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the conversation.



> I didn't miss it, and I am glad you reposted it because it saves me the trouble of trying to find it again.
> 
> While what you posted here is undoubtably true, I am not sure how what you posted here actually answers Gizmo33's questions.  This seems more like an (unintentional, I am sure) sidestep of the questions by answering soemthing that wasn't asked.
> 
> 
> RC



Gizmo asked:



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> *I have never understood, though this is a long standing issue, how an encounter that poses no risk to a PC (of either resource loss or loss of life) is of any mechanical interest.*
> 
> Maybe try with this extreme example. 4 20th level characters against 4 standard kobolds. The 20th level characters are at full power, and so they have a huge range of abilities to exercise. There's no chance of PC death. And we'll say there's no resource expenditure issues since it's the only encounter that day (and it probably doesn't even require that). My question is: how can you make this an encounter of "mechanical interest"?
> 
> If this is a bad example, then why? What fundemental difference is there with any other encounter where PCs know they're going to win and know that there is no impact on their daily resources?



Emphasis mine.


			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> There is a WORLD of difference between a 10th level fighter and four goblins (where there is, presumably, no challenge at all) and the encounter I ran in M&M just last night where the PCs were left after the encounter in _exactly_ the same state, mechanically, they were before. Since you seem to equate the 10th level fighter and four goblins with _any_ encounter where resource expenditure is minimized, I pose the following challenge to you:
> 
> Please tell me how the six rounds of combat, where the PCs were forced to contend with a water ninja's obscure effect, the Hellfire-controlling PC almost taking himself out of the fight when he stabbed an alternate-universe version of himself in the soul, federal agents stunning and trapping a shrinking hero in a specimen jar, and a squad of soldiers taking one of the heroes prisoner temporarily was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> Please tell me how the Big Bad Evil Guy rolling so well for the first four rounds that he didn't take any damage, as well as one federal agent who took an absurd amount of punishment for those early rounds (again rolling extremely well), leaving the PCs seriously wondering whether or not they could win the fight, especially when an NPC psychic with them was rolling so poorly that he might as well not have been there (he couldn't hit the broad side of an anything) was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> Please tell me how the enemies upending lab benches to use for cover to thwart the PC blasters' attacks, volatile chemicals exploding and harming PC and NPC alike, and the MacGuffin both groups were after (a rare primate) sitting in the middle of all of this chaos with his piddly +1 toughness save modifier was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> The PCs were going through hero points, alright, but they were gaining them like crazy too, thanks to unforseen complications arising constantly (one PC fighting her archenemy, another having to fight his alternate self, a third being trapped in a lead-lined specimen container that blocked her powers). Indeed, even the luck controller (who by design must spend oodles of hero points) wound up right back to where he started after the fight, when an NPC snuck away with a box containing material which could be used to blackmail him.
> 
> Please tell me how this encounter was of no "mechanical significance".
> 
> And most importantly, please make sure your forward your response to my players, who told me that they greatly enjoyed the encounter last night and thought it was great fun. They apparently need to know that their encounter had no "mechanical significance", and that they should have simply ticked off resources instead and skipped the encounter. That's what you do with things that are insignificant, right?



I'm hoping someone will soon answer me and tell my how this encounter was of no "mechanical significance".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Gizmo asked:




I don't think anyone is claiming that your encounter wasn't significant, although you don't give enough information to know if it was mechanically significant or not.

OTOH, I think I see the disconnect.  What you placed emphasis on was a statement.  Gizmo33's questions in the quoted section are:

(1) How can you make this an encounter of "mechanical interest"?  (Relates to the specific setup in his post, which you quoted)

(2)  If this is a bad example, then why? 

(3)  What fundemental difference is there with any other encounter where PCs know they're going to win and know that there is no impact on their daily resources?

Those three questions remain unanswered, except by Mustrum_Ridcully, whose response to (1) was, essentially, "You can't".  Everyone else seems to be ignoring those questions, or answering something other than those questions.  I believe the reason for this is obvious -- Mustrum_Ridcully is absolutely correct.

RC


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is claiming that your encounter wasn't significant, although you don't give enough information to know if it was mechanically significant or not.
> 
> OTOH, I think I see the disconnect.  What you placed emphasis on was a statement.  Gizmo33's questions in the quoted section are:
> 
> (1) How can you make this an encounter of "mechanical interest"?  (Relates to the specific setup in his post, which you quoted)
> 
> (2)  If this is a bad example, then why?
> 
> (3)  What fundemental difference is there with any other encounter where PCs know they're going to win and know that there is no impact on their daily resources?
> 
> Those three questions remain unanswered, except by Mustrum_Ridcully, whose response to (1) was, essentially, "You can't".  Everyone else seems to be ignoring those questions, or answering something other than those questions.  I believe the reason for this is obvious -- Mustrum_Ridcully is absolutely correct.
> 
> RC



 Color me skeptical, but I'd wager that even if someone answered those questions, gizmo33 and/or you would either deny they answered the questions or come up with a tangential statement and take things in another direction. 

That being said, I'm off to teach now but I'll take a crack at the questions later, if someone hasn't already done so. My PCs have had many encounters where they knew it was the only encounter in the day and that they wouldn't lose, but which the players found to be of significant interest.


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> Color me skeptical, but I'd wager that even if someone answered those questions, gizmo33 and/or you would either deny they answered the questions or come up with a tangential statement and take things in another direction.




That's a testable hypothesis.

Test it.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is claiming that your encounter wasn't significant, although you don't give enough information to know if it was mechanically significant or not.



Then what sort of information would you need to know?



> OTOH, I think I see the disconnect.  What you placed emphasis on was a statement.  Gizmo33's questions in the quoted section are:
> 
> (1) How can you make this an encounter of "mechanical interest"?  (Relates to the specific setup in his post, which you quoted)



Because the events in the encounter included actions which were of mechanical interest, clearly. On every single round, the characters made meaningful choices which impacted (in some cases positively, in some cases negatively) the outcome of the encounter due to changes in the mechanical states of themselves and their allies and enemies.



> (2)  If this is a bad example, then why?



Because it's a strawman. I provided an example where the PCs were in little danger of actually being killed (though they could be defeated and hurt) and where there was no appreciable change in the mechanical capabilities after the fight in relation to the way they were before it, _and yet the encounter itself was of great mechanical interest_.



> (3)  What fundemental difference is there with any other encounter where PCs know they're going to win and know that there is no impact on their daily resources?



How much fun the encounter itself is, in the challenge it presents.



> Those three questions remain unanswered, except by Mustrum_Ridcully, whose response to (1) was, essentially, "You can't".  Everyone else seems to be ignoring those questions, or answering something other than those questions.  I believe the reason for this is obvious -- Mustrum_Ridcully is absolutely correct.
> 
> RC



I've now answered those questions again. Will you answer mine?


			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> There is a WORLD of difference between a 10th level fighter and four goblins (where there is, presumably, no challenge at all) and the encounter I ran in M&M just last night where the PCs were left after the encounter in _exactly_ the same state, mechanically, they were before. Since you seem to equate the 10th level fighter and four goblins with _any_ encounter where resource expenditure is minimized, I pose the following challenge to you:
> 
> Please tell me how the six rounds of combat, where the PCs were forced to contend with a water ninja's obscure effect, the Hellfire-controlling PC almost taking himself out of the fight when he stabbed an alternate-universe version of himself in the soul, federal agents stunning and trapping a shrinking hero in a specimen jar, and a squad of soldiers taking one of the heroes prisoner temporarily was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> Please tell me how the Big Bad Evil Guy rolling so well for the first four rounds that he didn't take any damage, as well as one federal agent who took an absurd amount of punishment for those early rounds (again rolling extremely well), leaving the PCs seriously wondering whether or not they could win the fight, especially when an NPC psychic with them was rolling so poorly that he might as well not have been there (he couldn't hit the broad side of an anything) was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> Please tell me how the enemies upending lab benches to use for cover to thwart the PC blasters' attacks, volatile chemicals exploding and harming PC and NPC alike, and the MacGuffin both groups were after (a rare primate) sitting in the middle of all of this chaos with his piddly +1 toughness save modifier was of no "mechanical interest".
> 
> The PCs were going through hero points, alright, but they were gaining them like crazy too, thanks to unforseen complications arising constantly (one PC fighting her archenemy, another having to fight his alternate self, a third being trapped in a lead-lined specimen container that blocked her powers). Indeed, even the luck controller (who by design must spend oodles of hero points) wound up right back to where he started after the fight, when an NPC snuck away with a box containing material which could be used to blackmail him.
> 
> Please tell me how this encounter was of no "mechanical significance".
> 
> And most importantly, please make sure your forward your response to my players, who told me that they greatly enjoyed the encounter last night and thought it was great fun. They apparently need to know that their encounter had no "mechanical significance", and that they should have simply ticked off resources instead and skipped the encounter. That's what you do with things that are insignificant, right?


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I honestly have never seen a D&D game where a PC got killed without any decision-making that led there.  I am sure that there are DMs who roll on the Wandering Damage chart, or who make it impossible to gain enough information to at least guess what a reasonable course of action might be.  I just think that those are DM problems, not system problems.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> 
> RC





Oddly enough - I had very close to this happen to me in a WHFRP session - lost a character despite doing everything right because I couldn't roll above a 15 or so on percentile dice. Got killed by a necromancer that I only needed to hit once to disrupt his spell. (The rest of the party was being held off by his undead goons).


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Then what sort of information would you need to know?




The mechanics.



> Because the events in the encounter included actions which were of mechanical interest, clearly. On every single round, the characters made meaningful choices which impacted (in some cases positively, in some cases negatively) the outcome of the encounter due to changes in the mechanical states of themselves and their allies and enemies.




I believe that Gizmo33 wanted an actual example using that setup that demonstrates how your response might look in practice.  Therefore, I don't call this an answer (Shilsen, make of that what you will), but rather another evasion of the question.



> Because it's a strawman.




How so?  If it is possible to make a "clear win" encounter one in which there is mechanical interest, then this would make it more clear how such a thing could be done.  The more clear the win is, the more clear an example of how it is still mechanically interesting will be.



> I provided an example where the PCs were in little danger of actually being killed (though they could be defeated and hurt) and where there was no appreciable change in the mechanical capabilities after the fight in relation to the way they were before it, _and yet the encounter itself was of great mechanical interest_.




Yet, throughout this discussion, Gizmo33 and I have been clear that we agree with you that a win/lose scenario can be exciting.  That tells us nothing about whether or not a situation where you _clearly cannot lose_ can be exciting.

Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate that the excitement was mechanical, rather than story-based, because you haven't provided the mechanics of the encounter.



> I've now answered those questions again. Will you answer mine?




You have evaded those questions again, but I will nonetheless be happy to answer yours if you provide the mechanics of the encounter.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Oddly enough - I had very close to this happen to me in a WHFRP session - lost a character despite doing everything right because I couldn't roll above a 15 or so on percentile dice. Got killed by a necromancer that I only needed to hit once to disrupt his spell. (The rest of the party was being held off by his undead goons).




You knew that there was a chance of failure, you apparently knew roughly what that chance was, and you made a decision on that basis.  That is not the fault of the dice.

If, in fact, you knew that there was a chance of failure, you apparently knew roughly what that chance was, and you made a decision on that basis, _yet regardless of the roll your result was predetermined_ I would see a real problem with the game.  If the DM decides that you live anyway, it invalidates the choice that you made by removing much of the context and all of the consequence of that choice.  This would make me quit the game (politely).  Again, though, not the fault of the dice.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The mechanics.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that Gizmo33 wanted an actual example using that setup that demonstrates how your response might look in practice.  Therefore, I don't call this an answer (Shilsen, make of that what you will), but rather another evasion of the question.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  If it is possible to make a "clear win" encounter one in which there is mechanical interest, then this would make it more clear how such a thing could be done.  The more clear the win is, the more clear an example of how it is still mechanically interesting will be.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, throughout this discussion, Gizmo33 and I have been clear that we agree with you that a win/lose scenario can be exciting.  That tells us nothing about whether or not a situation where you _clearly cannot lose_ can be exciting.
> 
> Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate that the excitement was mechanical, rather than story-based, because you haven't provided the mechanics of the encounter.
> 
> 
> 
> You have evaded those questions again, but I will nonetheless be happy to answer yours if you provide the mechanics of the encounter.
> 
> RC



So you'd like me to give you a round-for-round report of the battle, with the actions of every single participant, their options at each point, and what effects they had on gameplay? Do you realize what you're asking for?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> So you'd like me to give you a round-for-round report of the battle, with the actions of every single participant, their options at each point, and what effects they had on gameplay? Do you realize what you're asking for?




No, I am asking you to provide the mechanics of the encounter.  IOW, simply transcribe your encounter notes (with stats) or cut & paste them if you work on your computer.  We shouldn't need to see a round-by-round to determine the level of mechanical interest.

EDIT:  Unless you are contending that you cannot determine whether or not an encounter is mechanically interesting on the basis of such data?    

RC


----------



## Mallus

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> So you'd like me to give you a round-for-round report of the battle, with the actions of every single participant, their options at each point, and what effects they had on gameplay? Do you realize what you're asking for?



I _think_ he's asking you to argue the way he does, which would be Timecube-style.

Or he's just trying to win the point by exhausting you.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:
			
		

> I _think_ he's asking you to argue the way he does, which would be Timecube-style.





What is it with you and this timecube stuff anyway?  Are you planning on releasing the d20 guide to timecubes?


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What is it with you and this timecube stuff anyway?



It's my idea of humor. Might not be anyone else's.

edit: there already is a timecube rpg.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Mallus said:
			
		

> It's my idea of humor. Might not be anyone else's.
> 
> edit: there already is a timecube rpg.



 I laughed.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There.  Now you can do so something wizardy every round, and you are absolutely equal to a fighter of the same level.




Hah - in fact, I'm a fighter with a fluff change.  I don't want to do "fightery" things.  I want to do "wizardly" things.  And while unlimited shots of eldritch energy *is* an option, it should not be the only option.

Moreover, we've largely got that in 3.5.

It's called the Warlock, and it works pretty well (though, from reports from others, I understand that it gets a little boring in the higher levels because it's largely limited to Eldritch Blasts; he's too close to the Fighter with a Fluff Change).

In 4E, I'd like them to take what they learned from the Warlock and the Bo9S and SWSE and apply it to the core rules.  I'd like them to take the lessons from the Warlock and the Crusader and the Jedi and apply them to the Wizard.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No, I am asking you to provide the mechanics of the encounter.  IOW, simply transcribe your encounter notes (with stats) or cut & paste them if you work on your computer.  We shouldn't need to see a round-by-round to determine the level of mechanical interest.




No, I think you mean:


IOW, give me enough data to point at and say, "See - that wasn't mechanically interesting because of X, Y, and Z," despite the fact that you and your players felt it was mechanically interesting.  You and your players are wrong, deluded, or uncertain about the definition of mechanically interesting.  Allow me to elucidate on what "mechanically interesting" really means in another 30 paragraph post ...​


----------



## Mallus

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I laughed.



Thanks. I feel better now.


----------



## gizmo33

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'm hoping someone will soon answer me and tell my how this encounter was of no "mechanical significance".




The "mechanical significance" thing is stressed over and over in a way that seems to imply that is distinct from chance of death.  In some cases in your M&M example it is, but not being an M&M player I'm not really sure how much to make of this example.  How significant is it to use action points in an encounter where you gain back an equal number or more?  That to me, superficially, doesn't seem like a very interesting situation but since your example is set in M&M terms, I might be missing some points.

I don't know what happens in a game system where PCs can't die.  In your M&M example, a PC "almost takes himself out by stabbing an alternate universe version of himself".  I don't know what "takes out" means if it doesn't mean death.  Furthermore, if PCs don't die, I don't know what is stopping them from just trying the objective over and over again until they succeed.  I suppose there might be some sort of railroad type thing that prevents PCs from revisiting an objective once they've "failed" but, again, I don't really understand the context of this since it's happening in M&M.

Is there a DnD example?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, I think you mean:
> 
> IOW, give me enough data to point at and say, "See - that wasn't mechanically interesting because of X, Y, and Z," despite the fact that you and your players felt it was mechanically interesting.  You and your players are wrong, deluded, or uncertain about the definition of mechanically interesting.  Allow me to elucidate on what "mechanically interesting" really means in another 30 paragraph post...​




Well, either it would indicate that JK and I have very different opinions of what is mechanically interesting or not, but since I have already agreed numerous times that win/lose scenarios are mechanically interesting, the only real benefit would be that I could answer his question.  And, given my answers to this point, I would likely largely agree with him that it was mechanically interesting (guessing, of course, sight unseen).

Especially given, in the post where I made the request, I said specifically:  

Yet, throughout this discussion, Gizmo33 and I have been clear that we agree with you that a win/lose scenario can be exciting. That tells us nothing about whether or not a situation where you clearly cannot lose can be exciting.​
The problem is only that I neither wish to refuse answering his question, nor can I answer it on the basis of the information provided.

"30 paragraph posts" and "timecubes" only appear when, after stating "The car was red" I receive an answer like "what do you mean by car?  Which car?  What do you mean by red?  What if it was under the light of a blue star?  What if I was wearing sunglasses?"  I have tried to keep the waters as clear as possible, and have gone so far as to break down my argument in a point-by-point form.  (shrug)  I suppose I could plot out the argument thus far, including all objections and responses to objections.  But it would seem like a colossal waste of time.

YMMV


RC


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That's a testable hypothesis.
> 
> Test it.




I'd say we just tested it when Jackelope King provided a detailed post and your only answer was that you needed more information. 

But since you clearly need more, I'll give you an example from my campaigns. Five particularly buff and heavily equipped 9th level PCs ran up against a bunch of six muggers who were 2nd lvl rogues, with minimal equipment. It took exactly one round for the players to work out that there was no way they could lose. One of them alone could probably have taken all six of the enemies without any risk of being hurt. The fight lasted all of four rounds, and the only reason it lasted that long was because some of the PCs took turns fighting. I think maybe one PC or two lost hit pts, and less than 20% of their total. And the players had an absolute blast.

From a psychological viewpoint, they enjoyed it precisely because they couldn't lose. It let them feel powerful and appreciate how far their PCs had come from the days where they would have trouble with 2nd lvl enemies. On a mechanical level the fact that they were sure they wouldn't lose let them indulge in trying things mechanically that they normally don't. PCs tried - and succeeded - at tripping foes, sundering an enemy's weapon, flipping a dagger out of a rogue's hand and then catching it and then handing it back with a suggestion to try again, picking up an unconscious enemy and bludgeoning another one with it, etc. The wizard picked up a weapon for the first time in ages and beat down an enemy, and then summoned a creature he'd normally never use in a fight and had it chase another of the enemies around. 

In short, even though - and more precisely, because - the PCs had absolutely no way of losing and knew it, they (and their players) enjoyed themselves thoroughly. The enjoyment was both story-based (look how powerful we are) and mechanical (look at all the cool things we can try). Admittedly the enjoyment would be lower if every fight or even most of the fights provided no risk of defeat at all, but if such encounters occur once in a while, I find that the group (and I've had the above happen with multiple groups) generally enjoys it a lot. That applies for all kinds of encounters, of course. Fights that take PCs to the edge of defeat are also exciting (mechanically and via story), but similarly, only if they aren't the norm.

So there you go. Time to test that hypothesis.


----------



## gizmo33

shilsen said:
			
		

> But since you clearly need more, I'll give you an example from my campaigns. Five particularly buff and heavily equipped 9th level PCs ran up against a bunch of six muggers who were 2nd lvl rogues, with minimal equipment.




Thanks, I think this answers my request above for a DnD based example.  Now I guess I'll add "PCs get to show off their skills and try sub-optimal combat strategies" to my short list (the other one being "potential PC death") of things you mean when you say "mechanical interest".  With such a list I will be able to make sense of the myriad of times that "mechanical interest" has been used on this thread without me having much of a sense of what that means.  

Some of this is play-style dependant.  I don't think that my players would be very entertained by the situation in your example.  I'm not sure why but it might have to do with them generally being familiar enough with the DnD system that tripping an opponent isn't all that interesting, or maybe they're just curmudgeons, I'm not really sure.  

In any case, if an "all per encounter" resource system is going to encourage me to rely on a list of things of "mechanical interest" and those things wouldn't entertain me or my players, I'd like to know that up front so I can avoid that game system.  If there is actually a long list of things that would be interesting, I'd like to know that too.


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> I'd say we just tested it when Jackelope King provided a detailed post and your only answer was that you needed more information.




JK's post didn't provide the details needed to answer the question.

Yours however did: 

On a mechanical level the fact that they were sure they wouldn't lose let them indulge in trying things mechanically that they normally don't. PCs tried - and succeeded - at tripping foes, sundering an enemy's weapon, flipping a dagger out of a rogue's hand and then catching it and then handing it back with a suggestion to try again, picking up an unconscious enemy and bludgeoning another one with it, etc. The wizard picked up a weapon for the first time in ages and beat down an enemy, and then summoned a creature he'd normally never use in a fight and had it chase another of the enemies around.​
That is an answer to the question posed.  It's evem a good answer.    I have long endorsed letting players have a chance to beat up folks that have no chance against them, so that they could measure their growth.  I had never considered that to be a "mechanical" issue, but of course it is one.

With more data, JK's answer might be more important, though, simply because he sustains his entire game using these encounters, whereas I doubt you could do so in D&D by using the above method to sustain mechanical interest.  Do you believe that you could sustain mechanical interest using only (or mostly) the above tactic?


RC


----------



## shilsen

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Thanks, I think this answers my request above for a DnD based example.  Now I guess I'll add "PCs get to show off their skills and try sub-optimal combat strategies" to my short list (the other one being "potential PC death") of things you mean when you say "mechanical interest".  With such a list I will be able to make sense of the myriad of times that "mechanical interest" has been used on this thread without me having much of a sense of what that means.




Okay. I could be wrong, but I don't think I've really been mentioning of "mechanical interest" much, however, so there may be a lot of things other people mean which I'm not covering. I've actually been placing more emphasis on the issue of "potential PC death" being unnecessary to make an encounter interesting or challenging.



> Some of this is play-style dependant.  I don't think that my players would be very entertained by the situation in your example.  I'm not sure why but it might have to do with them generally being familiar enough with the DnD system that tripping an opponent isn't all that interesting, or maybe they're just curmudgeons, I'm not really sure.




I'd say almost everything in the game is play-style mediated. The interesting thing with the encounter I mentioned is that it gave players a chance to try things they normally didn't. So the people who normally never try tripping, sundering, disarming, etc. were the ones trying it, the mage took a break from spellcasting to kick the crap out of an enemy in melee, and so on.



> In any case, if an "all per encounter" resource system is going to encourage me to rely on a list of things of "mechanical interest" and those things wouldn't entertain me or my players, I'd like to know that up front so I can avoid that game system.  If there is actually a long list of things that would be interesting, I'd like to know that too.




Why does the question even matter? It seems fairly certain that 4e is not going to use an "all per encounter" resource system (emphasis on "all"). So unless you've got some game system in mind which has that kind of resource system and which you're considering playing, why do you care?



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> With more data, JK's answer might be more important, though, simply because he sustains his entire game using these encounters, whereas I doubt you could do so in D&D by using the above method to sustain mechanical interest. Do you believe that you could sustain mechanical interest using only (or mostly) the above tactic?




I doubt I could, but why would I (or anyone) ever want to? I seriously doubt there are many, or even any, DMs out there whose PCs only (or mostly) encounter enemies so far weaker than them that the enemy can't threaten them at all. That would, in all likelihood, be boring for them, just like it would likely be boring to always fight enemies who have a good chance of TPKing you. There's the option for variety in difficulty of encounters and a DM is free to avail of the option (whether using a primarily attrition-based or primarily encounter-based system) and almost certainly will, so whether you can sustain mechanical interest using only the above tactic is irrelevant.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ah, but if you are going to give Class A flexability compared to Class B, then Class B must get something to compensate, right?  So, if Class A gets flexability and unlimited resources, and Class B gets no flexability and unlimited resources, there's going to be a problem.
> 
> The solution, of course, is to simply drop the fighter as "unfun".  Perhaps we can replace him with some form of Wuxia character that has both flexability and unlimited resources.....say a spell-casting warmage?
> 
> <cut to subsequent post>
> 
> Balanced does not mean identical.
> 
> Two classes can be balanced, even though one is a combat machine and the other is not.



There are ways of being "balanced but different" within combat that don't simply involve giving one character at-will moderate damage abilities and the other character limited-use high damage abilities. Jackelope King has given examples, drawn from his M&M game.

Furthermore, not every way of achieving such balance are equally good game design. For many players, at least, it is a _defect_ in game design if effective play requires them to regularly miss a turn. This is what D&D requires wizards to do, if they are not to nova and thereby give rise to the 15-minute day (and also to overshadow the fighters).

As far as I can tell, 4e is looking to give wizards different options: more options, but different from damage-dealing (wizards, we are told, will be "controllers"). It is also looking to give fighters more options.

I don't know why you suggest that fighter's per-encounter or per-day resources must be spells or even wuxia abilities. There is nothing magical or wuxia about a once-per-day "second wind", or a once-per-minute "mighty blow", or any number of abilities that I'm sure the design team can conceive of.

As to the question, why balance combat effectiveness? Because, as currently played at least, combat takes up about 75% of the time at the gaming table in the typical D&D game. So a PC who is not effective in most combats, most of the time, means a player who is frequently having nothing to do at the table.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Though we will note, in our examples, the wizard who uses his high-level spells and then wants to rest instead of using his mid- & low-level spells is, in fact, doing _more_ than the fighter in those encounters overall.
> 
> While not by any means universal, I imagine that there is a contingent who isn't actually interested in balance -- they want more power, now, and they want no downside to it....even when the downside is only "balanced with everyone else".  Which is why we strangely hear that the wizard blows away the fighter power-wise, and yet strangely hear a call to give the wizard more power to balance him.



To give a wizard per-encounter abilities does give the wizard more powers (= abilities), but not necessarily more power (if, as is almost certain, the effects of per-day spells are changed). For a player of a wizard to want to be able to do something effective every turn is not a desire for some sort of juvenile instant gratification - it is a desire to have fun _playing a game_.


----------



## pemerton

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The "mechanical significance" thing is stressed over and over in a way that seems to imply that is distinct from chance of death.
> 
> <cut to a subsequent post>
> 
> I will be able to make sense of the myriad of times that "mechanical interest" has been used on this thread without me having much of a sense of what that means.



RC introduced the notion of "mechanical significance", as a potential property of an encounter: in RC's sense an encounter is "mechanically significant" if it affects the party's resources available for subsequent encounters (whether by addition or attrition).

I believe I may have introduced the notion of "mechanical interest", meaning any sort of interest or pleasure derived in play through deployment of the mechanics of the game. 1st ed AD&D has very little mechanical interest in this sense, just because its mechanics are so sparse, and a great deal of action resolution essentially bypasses them, being mediated directly between the players and the GM. Core 3E has quite a lot of mechanics, both in character build and action resolution, but does not allow for the sort of mechanical interest that the introducion of per-encounter resources will permit, because it does not give players a sufficient range of complex choices during the course of encounter resolution.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> How significant is it to use action points in an encounter where you gain back an equal number or more?  That to me, superficially, doesn't seem like a very interesting situation



Potentially hugely significant. I don't play M&M either, but from Jackelope King's description it sounds similar to games like HeroQuest or (under a certain reading of its ruleset) HARP, in which Action/Hero/Fate Points are earned by engaging with certain goals/themes specified by the player for his or her character, and may be spent in order to pursue success/development of those same goals/themes. In such a system, every time a player earns or spends an Action Point, they are getting what they came to the gaming table for, namely, the experience of plot or thematic exploration that they want to engage in.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't know what happens in a game system where PCs can't die.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Furthermore, if PCs don't die, I don't know what is stopping them from just trying the objective over and over again until they succeed.



In a system in which PCs don't die, they pursue goals, succeed or fail at them, forge or destroy relationships with one another, with NPCs, or with other elements of the gameworld. They prosper or decline.

As for the issue of "pursuit of objectives": currently one of the PCs in my RM campaign, a quiet scholar and weaponsmith who also happens to be a master of several twin-swords fighting styles, is attempting to woo an enchantress that the party rescued from a demon's castle on the ethereal plane. As part of his pursuit of this objective, over the past two levels he has developed a skill rank in Seduction at each level - this mechanical change to the character corresponds, in the game world, to an attempt by the PC to improve his ability to relate romantically to other people. Eventually, the PC will have to make his intentions plain to this NPC. When he does, she may or may not rebuff him. If she does, he won't die - but for obvious reasons, he may not be able to try again! - at least, not until he does something that makes her change her mind about him.

Now this is only one small sub-plot of a much bigger campaign, but I use it to illustrate a more general point: if the gameworld changes in response to the actions taken by the PC, then "objectives" will not remain static in response to the PCs' interactions with them, whether or not the PCs die. It also illustrates how mechanics can feature as an element of play (in this case, the character build mechanics) without PC death being a relevant consideration.

Another general point: many games are not "infiltrate and loot" games of the sort that 1st ed AD&D (judging from the play advice given in the 2nd half of the PHB) is primarily aimed at. For these different sorts of game, there are all sorts of ways of failing without dying.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Those three questions remain unanswered, except by Mustrum_Ridcully



And me.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Everyone else seems to be ignoring those questions, or answering something other than those questions.



I answered them in detail.




			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Is there a DnD example?
> 
> <cut to a subsequent post>
> 
> Thanks, I think this answers my request above for a DnD based example.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Some of this is play-style dependant.  I don't think that my players would be very entertained by the situation in your example.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In any case, if an "all per encounter" resource system is going to encourage me to rely on a list of things of "mechanical interest" and those things wouldn't entertain me or my players, I'd like to know that up front so I can avoid that game system.  If there is actually a long list of things that would be interesting, I'd like to know that too.



A core D&D example of the sort of mechanical interest that per-encounter resources permit _cannot be given_, because the requisite mechanics do not exist in core D&D. Jackelope King has given examples derived from M&M. I have given examples derived from RM, as well as examples from CCGs, and analogies drawing on non-gaming aspects of life which also provide pleasure through participation in complex activities.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If it is possible to make a "clear win" encounter one in which there is mechanical interest, then this would make it more clear how such a thing could be done.



This is not true. First, by analogy: because it is possible for me to have a philosophical argument with an undergraduate student which I cannot lose, but which is nevertheless interesting, it does not follow that I can have such an argument with my 17-month-old daughter.

Second, to tackle the issue directly: it may be that a mechanically interesting "clear win" encounter acquires its interest from having certain properties which the example (4 20ths vs 4 kobolds) does not have. One such property might be this: the certainty of the win is a consequence of clever decision making by the players. Thus, I suggested in my reply that a better example might substitute stone giants for kobolds.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No, I am asking you to provide the mechanics of the encounter.  IOW, simply transcribe your encounter notes (with stats) or cut & paste them if you work on your computer.  We shouldn't need to see a round-by-round to determine the level of mechanical interest.
> 
> EDIT:  Unless you are contending that you cannot determine whether or not an encounter is mechanically interesting on the basis of such data?
> 
> RC



If you wish. I hope you're willing to be impartial enough to recognize the mechanical significance which these elements helped to impart when brought together.


			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Enemies
> 
> *Suika (PL 11 Water-controlling Ninja)*
> _relevant abilities:_
> Skills: Acrobatics +11, Stealth +14
> Feats: Hide in Plain Sight, Sneak Attack 4
> Powers: Water Control 10 (AP: Blast 10, AP: Obscure (Visual) 10, AP: Suffocate 10)
> 
> *Shift (Morphed into Sayre) (PL 12 Shapeshifting Alien)*
> _relevant abilities_
> Skills: Bluff +12, Intimidate +16
> Feats: Challenge (Fast Intimidate)
> Powers: Shapeshift 12, Drain Toughness 10 (Extra: Affects Objects) LINKED Damage 10, Immunity 5 (Interaction Skills))
> 
> *Alt-Warlock (PL 11 Brute)*
> _relevant abilities_
> Skills: Sense Motive +7
> Feats: Power Attack, Improved Grab, Improved Grapple
> Powers: Enhanced Strength 20; Damage 13 (Extras: Alternate Save (Will), Ranged; Flaws: (Only Warlock) (-2), Limited (Damage suffered) (-1); Power Feats: Triggered (When struck with an effect with a will save))
> 
> *Federal Agents x2 (PL 8 Agents)*
> _relevant abilities_
> Skills: Sense Motive +12
> Feats: Teamwork
> Powers: Device (Heavy Pistol; Chronostatic Ammo (Damage 12 (Extras: Ranged) LINKED Paralyze 12); AP: Explosive Ammo (Damage 12 (Extras: Penetrating))
> 
> *US Military Police x4 (PL 7 Soldiers)*
> _relevant abilities_
> Skills: Sense Motive +6
> Feats: Teamwork 2, Improved Grab
> Powers: Device (Assault Rifle; Damage 7 (Extras: Autofire 2, Penetrating, Ranged)); AP: Grenade Launcher (Damage 12 (Extras: Burst Area, Ranged; Flaws: Unreliable 2 (One Use))
> 
> 
> Environment
> 
> *Lab table, Desk (x8)*
> _relevant abilities_
> Powers: Shield 2 (Extras: Touch Range, Continuous Duration) LINKED Protection 6 (Extras: Touch Range, Not Permanent) (Flaw: Strength Check required (DC 15))
> _upend a table or desk to create low wall w/ cover_
> 
> *Volatile Chemicals*
> _relevant abilities_
> Powers: Damage 5 (Extras: Burst Area Sustained, Independent, Penetrating; Power Feats: Progression (reduced area: 5 ft.), Triggered (Damaged))
> _damaged chemicals splash, burning those in area_
> 
> *Fire Suppression-System*
> _relevant abilities_
> Powers: Obscure 10 (Visual; Flaws: Limited (Partial Only))
> 
> Area: 40' x 30' long L, 20' x 30' short L
> 
> 
> Heroes
> 
> *Fortune (PL 11 Luck Controller*
> *Kage (alternate version, remove telepathy array, add teleportation array) (PL 11 Psychic Ninja)*
> *Roc (PL 11 Radiation Controller)*
> *Warlock (PL 11 Hellfire Controller)*
> 
> _NPC Backup_
> Ex-Inspector Ramirez (PL 10 Psychic Cop)[/b]
> 
> 
> The MacGuffin
> *Monkey (PL 0 Tiny Caged Animal)*
> _relevent abilities_
> Powers: Shrinking 8 (Permenant)



The encounter accomplishes the following:
- It provides a wide spectrum of different challenging enemies for the PCs to face
- It provides for tactical interaction with the environment
- It challenges different characters directly in different ways due to different complications and descriptors
- It is challenging enough that the PCs required teamwork to overcome it
- No "throw-away threats" (NPCs who were unable to damage the characters with Impervious protection, NPCs whose attacks were too low to hit the faster characters)
- NPCs could shift tactics if the PCs adapted to the fight (which they did... soldiers grappled Fortune, Agents used Chronostatic ammo against Roc, Shift used Drain/Damage against the relatively frail Ronin, etc.)
- Being stun on any given round directly increased the likelyhood of the opposing side being more effective on subsequent rounds
- It is directly significant to the plot (lose the MacGuffin and probability of friend dying increases)



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The "mechanical significance" thing is stressed over and over in a way that seems to imply that is distinct from chance of death. In some cases in your M&M example it is, but not being an M&M player I'm not really sure how much to make of this example. How significant is it to use action points in an encounter where you gain back an equal number or more? That to me, superficially, doesn't seem like a very interesting situation but since your example is set in M&M terms, I might be missing some points.



Hero points, not action points. And it was sheer luck that the PCs wound up with exactly the same HP totals at the start of the encounter as they did at the end. It was a combination of them getting HP from NPC actions (Warlock soul-stabbing his alternate self), their own complications (Kage seemingly facing the mad scientist who tortured her as a child), and circumstantial complications (files that would allow for blackmailing Fortune in the hands of the enemy).



> I don't know what happens in a game system where PCs can't die. In your M&M example, a PC "almost takes himself out by stabbing an alternate universe version of himself". I don't know what "takes out" means if it doesn't mean death. Furthermore, if PCs don't die, I don't know what is stopping them from just trying the objective over and over again until they succeed. I suppose there might be some sort of railroad type thing that prevents PCs from revisiting an objective once they've "failed" but, again, I don't really understand the context of this since it's happening in M&M.



Then understand it in the context of a story. They're in a hostile location on an alternate earth trying to recover the MacGuffin (the monkey) so that they can use it to heal a dying friend on their world. If they're defeated, someone might simply escape with the monkey, and they have to track down the enemy all over again. Or they're captured and held in a facility which they know performs illegal, painful experiments on metahumans and metahuman remains. Or note that two of the PCs come from opposite sides of a sort of secret metahuman war, and might betray one another at any given second.

Warlock in particular simply almost knocked himself out (reduced his condition to unconscious... instead, he was bruised and staggered for a round, which meant the party was short their best blaster for a round).

And gizmo, I hope you'll answer a question I asked you several pages ago which you never responded to:



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> gizmo33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that "strawman" gets misused on this board all of the time to mean something that the reader doesn't agree with and this is not it's definition.
> 
> My argument was not intended to be a proxy argument.  Proving my example as valid does not prove my case, but it was a counter-example to your blanket statement that placing encounters in context could never be heavy-handed/manipulative.  That's all I was trying to do there, not change the nature of the argument or create a strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I say "placing encounters in context *could never* be heavy-handed/manipulative"?
Click to expand...


----------



## Mieric

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Um, I find it's much _easier_ to challenge players when they don't have to worry about resource management - because you have a much better idea of how the character will perform at any particular time.




Possibly true, hell even probably true to a certain extent.



> I prefer to challenge the players to think than challenge the characters to use resources - it's much more satisfying on both sides that way.




Our group definately prefers the Ironman style of adventuring. We know we have limited resources and when exploring, conquring, or when rescuing the prince(ess) from the ______ of ______ we have to be careful of not overextending ourselves but at the same time dealing with the logical consequences of retreating to rest because we decided to perform an alpha strike.

We often find that the safest place to hold up and rest is actually behind enemy lines as opposed to in town or outside the dungeon (deeper in the dungeon where we haven't killed anything yet and the alarm hasn't been raised).

On a seperate note, I think my groups PnP playstyle is also why I've only enjoyed AC1 out of all the MMOs I've tried - limitless economies, the con systems (and the resulting mob bashing paradigm), and extremely limited to no resource management just don't do it for me.


----------



## pemerton

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The encounter accomplishes the following:
> 
> <snip encounter properties>



Nice example - it sounds like the sort of thing I've been talking about, as far as tactical interest is concerned.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Hero points, not action points.



Am I right in thinking that the gaining and spending of Hero Points is linked to protagonism and antagonism in the context of player-defined goals or themes for the PC in question?



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Then understand it in the context of a story.
> 
> <snip story>



Your story sounds like a fun one!


----------



## Jackelope King

pemerton said:
			
		

> Am I right in thinking that the gaining and spending of Hero Points is linked to protagonism and antagonism in the context of player-defined goals or themes for the PC in question?



Essentially, yes. PCs mainly get hero points for _complications_ coming up related to their history. For example, Kage was tortured as a child by Doctor Sayre so badly that her response to Sayre is an almost feral fear/aggression response. She gets hero points when confronted with Sayre.

As another example, Warlock and Roc are engaged and soon to be married. If Roc were to be kidnapped, Warlock would get a hero point for that (and vice verca if Warlock were kidnapped).



> Your story sounds like a fun one!



Thanks! It's the result of a fair handful of good GMs in a round-robin game.


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You knew that there was a chance of failure, you apparently knew roughly what that chance was, and you made a decision on that basis.  That is not the fault of the dice.
> 
> If, in fact, you knew that there was a chance of failure, you apparently knew roughly what that chance was, and you made a decision on that basis, _yet regardless of the roll your result was predetermined_ I would see a real problem with the game.  If the DM decides that you live anyway, it invalidates the choice that you made by removing much of the context and all of the consequence of that choice.  This would make me quit the game (politely).  Again, though, not the fault of the dice.





In this particular case, it took several rounds of poor dice to do my character in. I could have, in retrospect, probably have "played dead" (maybe not though), but it wasn't an appropriate response from the character.

IMHO, there's a difference between save-or-die (been there, done that), and several rounds of bad luck.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> If you wish. I hope you're willing to be impartial enough to recognize the mechanical significance which these elements helped to impart when brought together.




Thank you, Jackelope King.  As I said earlier, I would probably end up agreeing with you that the encounter was mechanically significant, though I couldn't do so without recourse to the mechanics.  The things that, I agree, make the encounter mechanically interesting are:

- It is challenging enough that the PCs required teamwork to overcome it
- No "throw-away threats" (NPCs who were unable to damage the characters with Impervious protection, NPCs whose attacks were too low to hit the faster characters)​
Everything else, IMHO, supports that important core point:  The PCs could lose.

I have already agreed, many times, that a win/lose scenario is mechanically significant.  In fact, I directly claimed that the system WotC seems to be setting up _removes much of the mechanical significance of any other encounter type_, meaning that the DM is far more likely to set up win/lose encounters than any other type.

And, if this is your answer re: 4 basic kobolds vs 20th level characters, it seems that you agree that "throw-away threats" are not mechanically interesting?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> In this particular case, it took several rounds of poor dice to do my character in. I could have, in retrospect, probably have "played dead" (maybe not though), but it wasn't an appropriate response from the character.




I don't see how that invalidates my point.

You made a decision knowing what the odds were.  You gambled and lost.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Everything else, IMHO, supports that important core point:  The PCs could lose.
> 
> I have already agreed, many times, that a win/lose scenario is mechanically significant.  In fact, I directly claimed that the system WotC seems to be setting up _removes much of the mechanical significance of any other encounter type_, meaning that the DM is far more likely to set up win/lose encounters than any other type.



The PCs could always lose. They almost lost a few weeks ago fighting a few low-PL mooks with armor-piercing ammo when the two toughest members of the group kept flubbing their (low-DC) toughness saves.

And as your wording suggests, you also recognize that there are many different consequences of defeat ("lose" not "die"). The GM who took over for the current arc in our M&M game ran an encounter on Saturday where there was absolutely no significant penalty for defeat (other than bragging rights). The players got to play students at the school founded by the team's psychic ninja in a training exercise: using their powers and skills, keep the ball away from the other team for 30 seconds. There were scrambles for the ball when someone dropped it or had it knocked away from them, and skirmishes to try to take down the girl on the other team who was an absolutely amazing soccer player (and thus the one most likely to steal the ball away (and be hard to steal the ball back from). This encounter was quite mechanically significant, as evidenced by the extreme shift in tactics from a normal fight to focus on a new target (knowing when to pass the ball and when to hold it, or using your powers to try to fake out the other team).

There's nothing necessarily wrong if the PCs lose encounters sometimes (which you seem to be implying is a threat to the game). If every encounter ends in loss=TPK, then yes, it could be disruptive to the game. But if there are various consequences for defeat, this isn't too much of a problem, and can lead to much more interesting adventures. Capture, forcing a retreat, the villain getting away, loss of clout, are all perfectly acceptable consequences for defeat which don't carry the game-ending hammer of a TPK.

But I'm glad to see that you seem to recognize that your definition of mechanical significance from way back upthread is flawed. This encounter had _no net change of expendible personal resources_ after the encounter relative to before it, and yet it was indeed mechanically significant.

However, I should also point out that we were discussing the 9-9:15 adventuring day, not the ratio of victories/defeats PCs should expect.



> And, if this is your answer re: 4 basic kobolds vs 20th level characters, it seems that you agree that "throw-away threats" are not mechanically interesting?
> 
> RC



It depends on the encounter. Are these four basic kobolds just ambushing them on the road with shortspears? Or are they sitting behind a fiendishly-clever trap that they might not even remember how to use? Or are they running away from the PCs through a huge clockwork maze, where the whole landscape is shifting on any given turn? Or are the four kobolds making their way through a set of tunnels underground, using hit-and-run tactics like the Viet Cong, knowing that most of the PCs can't follow them through the tunnels? If an encounter requires a thoughtful approach and some clever use of abilities on the part of the PCs, it doesn't matter how weak the enemy is. Two 20th-level fighters alternating full-attacks on each other is just as mechanically unfulfilling as a 20th-level party steamrolling over an EL1 challenge.


----------



## Gwathlas

KnightErrantJR said:
			
		

> I don't know.  I can understand having a "little" more flexibility, but I'm concerned that this per encounter/at will/per day structure is "idiot proofing" PCs to the point to where what decision they may isn't that big a deal.  Should you use mage blast or one of your spells?  Eh, in the end, if you make the wrong choice, you have more choices, and you won't really be "wrong," you just may have to fight something for 8 rounds instead of three.




I agree with KnightErrantJR.  It does sound like they are idiot proofing everything.  Add onto the per encounter ect., ect., that powers/stances/magic will allow characters to set up flanking or other positive modifers with out actually flanking or performing any action.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The PCs could always lose. They almost lost a few weeks ago fighting a few low-PL mooks with armor-piercing ammo when the two toughest members of the group kept flubbing their (low-DC) toughness saves.




If 4e includes the possibility of the PCs losing against everything they face, then that will certainly make things different.  Do you expect a condition track in 4e?



> And as your wording suggests, you also recognize that there are many different consequences of defeat ("lose" not "die").




Yes.  If you go back upthread, you will see that I acknowledge this many, many times.  However, I also realize that death is the most common "defeat" used by average DMs.  

In the attrition model, you are not facing a zero-sum game with encounters.  It is possible to win, but to have that win be so costly as to be worthless, damaging, mildly annoying, or to have no cost at all.  It is not either/or.

In a per-encounter model, the encounter must answer all mechanical interests.  That means it can be, as Shilsen pointed out, a showcase easy encounter where you can show off and try tricky things that you'd hate to have fail in a significant encounter, or it can be an encounter where you can lose, or it can be an encounter that is not mechanically interesting.  Since the showcase encounter is unlikely to be mechanically interesting if done too often, that leaves the win/lose encounter.

When addressing the problem of the 9-9:15 adventuring day, what you or I would do with the system is not IMHO important; what the average DM will do, and what the average players will do, is.  So the question becomes, what does the system reward?

If the system rewards the DM when he puts in win/lose encounters (as seems the case), and if the most common "lose" in D&D is death (as has certainly been the case up until now), then it makes sense that the average DM will include more deadly encounters.

If the average DM includes more deadly encounters, it seems more likely (to me at least) that the average players will use their per-day resources _before_ someone dies.  Which means, sooner rather than later.  Why?  Because the PC experience a higher success ratio, which means they are rewarded.

If the average players view their per-day resources as important for dealing with the common deadly encounters, they will want them available.  Why?  Because the PC experience a higher success ratio, which means they are rewarded.

If nothing else prevents it, then, the PCs will use, rest, rinse, and repeat.  Exactly the same as with 3.X.  The only differenc might be that the frequency of win/lose encounters increases, in which case the adventuring day shortens.

On average.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If 4e includes the possibility of the PCs losing against everything they face, then that will certainly make things different.  Do you expect a condition track in 4e?



I'd like one. Heck, I'd like them to go one further and ditch hit points for a toughness save/defense instead, but the chances of that are about the same as my walls spontaneously shooting pineapples at me. I also don't think that it's particularly likely that the PCs will be seriously threatened by a low-level threat: the instance I described was a result of unlucky rolling.



> Yes.  If you go back upthread, you will see that I acknowledge this many, many times.  However, I also realize that death is the most common "defeat" used by average DMs.



Again, not necessarily. A growing number of gamers simply have a spoken or unspoken rule that they don't kill PCs for whatever reason. For one of my GMs, it's because she can torture them more when they're alive. For another, older DM, it was because he hated working new PCs into the game and really liked the continuity of one adventuring party.



> In the attrition model, you are not facing a zero-sum game with encounters.  It is possible to win, but to have that win be so costly as to be worthless, damaging, mildly annoying, or to have no cost at all.  It is not either/or.
> 
> In a per-encounter model, the encounter must answer all mechanical interests.  That means it can be, as Shilsen pointed out, a showcase easy encounter where you can show off and try tricky things that you'd hate to have fail in a significant encounter, or it can be an encounter where you can lose, or it can be an encounter that is not mechanically interesting.  Since the showcase encounter is unlikely to be mechanically interesting if done too often, that leaves the win/lose encounter.



And there can be encounters which are at a certain challenge level because that's simply _what makes sense within the context of the game_. The local militia of a town aren't going to deploy a force of dragons against a high-level party just because the PCs are such a high-level threat: they'll deploy the forces they can muster and probably get cut down in short order. Sometimes it doesn't make sense to provide a particularly dangerous encounter.



> When addressing the problem of the 9-9:15 adventuring day, what you or I would do with the system is not IMHO important; what the average DM will do, and what the average players will do, is.  So the question becomes, what does the system reward?
> 
> If the system rewards the DM when he puts in win/lose encounters (as seems the case), and if the most common "lose" in D&D is death (as has certainly been the case up until now), then it makes sense that the average DM will include more deadly encounters.
> 
> If the average DM includes more deadly encounters, it seems more likely (to me at least) that the average players will use their per-day resources _before_ someone dies.  Which means, sooner rather than later.  Why?  Because the PC experience a higher success ratio, which means they are rewarded.
> 
> If the average players view their per-day resources as important for dealing with the common deadly encounters, they will want them available.  Why?  Because the PC experience a higher success ratio, which means they are rewarded.
> 
> If nothing else prevents it, then, the PCs will use, rest, rinse, and repeat.  Exactly the same as with 3.X.  The only differenc might be that the frequency of win/lose encounters increases, in which case the adventuring day shortens.
> 
> On average.  YMMV.
> 
> 
> RC



Considering how many ifs you need to back up your point, and considering the responses of several posters in this thread which point out quite nicely that PCs don't tend to lead with their biggest resources, I find this argument wanting once again. Until you can prove to me that players lead with their most powerful abilities (which in my experience is utter bunk: they'll always lead with their bread-and-butter abilities that aren't as cost-prohibitve to use), your points aren't convincing. In my experience, the average player leads with the plentiful resources in the middle of the bell-curve, power-wise, for fear of being without a high-level resource if they really need it later on. And since bread-and-butter abilities will always be available, there will be less of an requirement to rest-rinse-repeat, as you put it.

So again, until you can provide convincing evidence to support your claim that players tend to use their most valuable resources first, you're only offering me idle speculation, which on the internet, I can get by the truckload.

However, I am glad to see that you agree that a purely per-encounter system does indeed allow for mechanically interesting encounters, a retraction of your previous argument that challenges under a purely per-resource system _cannot_ allow for mechanically meaningful encounters.


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't see how that invalidates my point.
> 
> You made a decision knowing what the odds were.  You gambled and lost.
> 
> RC




You didn't quote the second part of my message


			
				Ian Argent said:
			
		

> IMHO, there's a difference between save-or-die (been there, done that), and several rounds of bad luck.


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> You didn't quote the second part of my message




I still don't see how that invalidates my point.

You made a decision knowing what the odds were. You gambled and lost.  What difference does it make whether those odds are expressed in one die roll or several?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> A growing number of gamers simply have a spoken or unspoken rule that they don't kill PCs for whatever reason.




A vocal minority.    

Unless you have evidence to the contrary?



> Until you can prove to me that players lead with their most powerful abilities (which in my experience is utter bunk: they'll always lead with their bread-and-butter abilities that aren't as cost-prohibitve to use), your points aren't convincing.




I'm fully happy to accept that you aren't convinced.    

What do you mean by "cost-prohibitive" though?  


RC


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I still don't see how that invalidates my point.
> 
> You made a decision knowing what the odds were. You gambled and lost.  What difference does it make whether those odds are expressed in one die roll or several?
> 
> RC





I made a decision _each round_. (The decisions was to stay in melee with the necromancer).

In WHFRP Wounds are a much more "granular" resource than HP are in D&D - you typically start with 1 or 2, and top out around 6 or 7 (at the time - I haven't read the last 2 incarnations of the WHFRP system).

Anyway, this is kind of an aside to the whole discussion - an anecdote intended to illustrate that even without a "mechanically significant" threat (we were expected by the GM to go through the encounter like a scythe against wheat) things can go pear-shaped. I was a lot _less_ upset that my character had been done in by the dice because it happened over several levels.

In fact, there's only one character death I was at all upset about in my long and varied gaming career - AD&D2ed Darksun; character died to a Death or 20 HP poison (Type E?), in a situation that I had no idea the character had been poisoned by the hit.
___________________________________________

But I think if you don't understand the difference between the two situations, we're not having the same discussion.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You made a decision knowing what the odds were. You gambled and lost.  What difference does it make whether those odds are expressed in one die roll or several?




Oh dear.


----------



## pemerton

hong said:
			
		

> Oh dear.



This sort of understated sarcasm isn't really my style - I'm a prolix poster - but I'll endorse the sentiment.

Now, let's imagine that the odds don't just play out over several dice rolls, but the sequence of die rolls and the probabilities they represent are themselves consequences of player choice (and perhaps the intersection of the choices of multiple players) at many points in the sequence.

Then we might have a mechanically interesting encounter even if there is little threat of PC death.

EDIT: Oh, and Hong, welcome back to the thread!


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A vocal minority.
> 
> Unless you have evidence to the contrary?



The burden of proof is on you.



> What do you mean by "cost-prohibitive" though?



That a resource is percieved as being in too-short supply to justify using without great threat (highest-level spells tend to fall here in my experience). Players tend to conserve these by instead expending resources which they percieve as more easily renewable or less costly (which they have more of). Hence the meat-and-potatoes/bread-and-butter abilities. They may not be the most powerful, but players percieve the cost of using them as more acceptable in most scenarios.

So again, until you can provide convincing evidence to support your claim that players tend to use their most valuable resources first, you're only offering me idle speculation, which on the internet, I can get by the truckload.

However, I am glad to see that you agree that a purely per-encounter system does indeed allow for mechanically interesting encounters, a retraction of your previous argument that challenges under a purely per-resource system _cannot_ allow for mechanically meaningful encounters.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The burden of proof is on you.




Why would it be?  I state that I disbelieve your statement.  If you do not want to convince me, there is no burden of proof on anyone.  If you want to convince me, the burden of proof is on you.  I don't care whether you believe what you stated or not; if I did, then the burden of proof would fall on me.



> So again, until you can provide convincing evidence to support your claim that players tend to use their most valuable resources first, you're only offering me idle speculation, which on the internet, I can get by the truckload.




I don't care whether you believe what I stated or not; if I did, then the burden of proof would fall on me.



> However, I am glad to see that you agree that a purely per-encounter system does indeed allow for mechanically interesting encounters, a retraction of your previous argument that challenges under a purely per-resource system _cannot_ allow for mechanically meaningful encounters.




Quote me or retract.

Clearly, you did not understand what I was saying, and I will be happy to quote over a dozen places where I said exactly the opposite.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why would it be?  I state that I disbelieve your statement.  If you do not want to convince me, there is no burden of proof on anyone.  If you want to convince me, the burden of proof is on you.  I don't care whether you believe what you stated or not; if I did, then the burden of proof would fall on me.
> 
> I don't care whether you believe what I stated or not; if I did, then the burden of proof would fall on me.



You're making a claim and not backing it up with evidence. It's as simple as that. You were the first to claim that the group in question was a minority. Provide evidence or retract your claim.



> Quote me or retract.
> 
> Clearly, you did not understand what I was saying, and I will be happy to quote over a dozen places where I said exactly the opposite.



I need only quote you in one place.


			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Thank you, Jackelope King.  As I said earlier, I would probably end up agreeing with you that the encounter was mechanically significant, though I couldn't do so without recourse to the mechanics.



You agreed that an encounter with per-encounter mechanics only and no net change of resources was mechanically significant. Therefore, I am glad to see that you agree that a purely per-encounter system does indeed allow for mechanically interesting encounters, a retraction of your previous argument that challenges under a purely per-resource system _cannot_ allow for mechanically meaningful encounters.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> You're making a claim and not backing it up with evidence. It's as simple as that. You were the first to claim that the group in question was a minority. Provide evidence or retract your claim.




I guess you missed what I was responding to:

*A growing number* of gamers simply have a spoken or unspoken rule that they don't kill PCs for whatever reason.​
That was the first claim, and it is yours.  Provide evidence or retract your claim, and I will be happy to do so for my statement that what you see as "a growing number of gamers" I see as "a vocal minority".    



> I need only quote you in one place.
> 
> You agreed that an encounter with per-encounter mechanics only and no net change of resources was mechanically significant. Therefore, I am glad to see that you agree that a purely per-encounter system does indeed allow for mechanically interesting encounters, a retraction of your previous argument that challenges under a purely per-resource system _cannot_ allow for mechanically meaningful encounters.




Yes, I agreed dozens of times throughout the course of this thread that an encounter with per-encounter mechanics only could be mechanically significant.  Please quote where I said that "challenges under a purely per-resource system _cannot_ allow for mechanically meaningful encounters" or retract your statement.

This is, btw, the exact "argument" that pemerton claimed I used, after I left the floor, which required no effort at all to demonstrate as a false assertation.  If I must, I will provide a dozen quotes or more to demonstrate your statement re: my position to be wrong.

So quote or retract, unless you are intentionally misrepresenting my position.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I guess you missed what I was responding to:
> 
> *A growing number* of gamers simply have a spoken or unspoken rule that they don't kill PCs for whatever reason.​
> That was the first claim, and it is yours.  Provide evidence or retract your claim, and I will be happy to do so for my statement that what you see as "a growing number of gamers" I see as "a vocal minority".



1. How many gamers agreed not to kill PCs under OD&D?

2. How many gamers agreed not to kill PCs under games today?

I find it highly improbable to the point of absurdity that 1. is greater than 2. Hence it is a "growing number of gamers" by definition.

Now provide your evidence that it's a "vocal minority" or retract your claim.



> Yes, I agreed dozens of times throughout the course of this thread that an encounter with per-encounter mechanics only could be mechanically significant.  Please quote where I said that "challenges under a purely per-resource system _cannot_ allow for mechanically meaningful encounters" or retract your statement.
> 
> This is, btw, the exact "argument" that pemerton claimed I used, after I left the floor, which required no effort at all to demonstrate as a false assertation.  If I must, I will provide a dozen quotes or more to demonstrate your statement re: my position to be wrong.
> 
> So quote or retract, unless you are intentionally misrepresenting my position.



I'm always happy to remind you of what you said. Earlier, you agreed that your argument was essentially:


			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> 1. Mechanical thresholds of significance are only measurable by how one encounter's resource expenditure informs the next encounter in the day's outcome.
> 
> 2. Per-day resource attrition is the only way to achieve mechanical thresholds of significance as defined in 1.



You did not dispute this summary of your position earlier, hence I was led to conclude that you believed that mechanical thresholds of significance could only be achieved by the expenditure of per-day (or longer-term, such as life) resources. What led me to propose this were these (among other) quotes:



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 1.  In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle.  It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario.  We have been told for a very long time, "if it doesn't impact the game, it's better to handwave it."
> 
> 1a.  The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-encounter resources don't impact the game, and hence are not significant.
> 
> 1b.  The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-day resources impact the game, and hence are significant.
> 
> 1c.  We are told that the problem that this design is meant to counter is resting as soon as significant (in the metagame sense) resources are depleted.
> 
> 1ci.  Having greater insignificant (in the metagame sense) resources means that you can adventure longer, but also that said adventuring is not meaningful (again, in the metagame sense).
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 2.  In order to make a battle significant, all (or the vast majority of) non-handwaved battles should have a reasonable chance of expending per-day resources.
> 
> <snip>





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Question:  Then whysoever, may I ask, have we been told time and time again, to eschew that "4 goblins vs. 10th level figher" in 3.X?
> 
> Answer:  Because we are told that it is not fun.
> 
> Question:  Why are we told that it is not fun?
> 
> Answer:  Because it is not significant, and more specifically because it has no chance to affect the outcome of the adventure.
> 
> Question:  If this was true for 3e, why would it not be true for 4e?
> 
> Answer:  ????





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The problem the "per-encounter" ability design is supposed to fix is that of PCs resting after they use their significant resources.  This design means that you can extend combats beyond those that use up significant resources, certainly, but only by making those combats inconsequential.  Which we have already been told, time and again, is unfun.





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Oi!  Is it possible to get past this?  I have already said per-encounter resources _dozens_ of times.  They are resources; they are just not _significant_ resources.
> 
> I, for one, grow weary of repeating everything over and over again.  I've given my reasoning on this in exacting detail.  I note that neither you, nor anyone else, has pointed out an actual flaw in that reasoning.  That doesn't make me correct, but it does give you ample ability to demonstrate me to be incorrect on that basis.
> 
> If you care to respond to what I said, fine.  Otherwise, I hope you'll understand if I stop responding to your comments.
> 
> RC





			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> An encounter that doesn't consume per-day resources is not irrelevant, but is insignificant in terms of mechanical threshold of significance in a system that combines per-day and per-encounter resources, barring some other factor (such as a risk/reward ratio to resting) that makes it significant.
> 
> RC



This is only from a survey of about 10 pages. Based on my reading, it would be accurate to claim that you did not believe that an encounter can be mechanically significant without a net-change in resources from before to after the encounter. Demonstrated an encounter with no net-change in resources from before to after the encounter which was still mechanically significant, which you agreed was mechanically significant. Hence I must conclude that you have come to accept that a per-encounter system is sufficient for providing mechanical significance, even with no net-change in resources from before to after an encounter.

Or, if this is not an accurate representation of your position, are you claiming that you intended to mislead the other posters in the thread?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackalope King said:
			
		

> 1. How many gamers agreed not to kill PCs under OD&D?
> 
> 2. How many gamers agreed not to kill PCs under games today?
> 
> I find it highly improbable to the point of absurdity that 1. is greater than 2. Hence it is a "growing number of gamers" by definition.




That isn't evidence; it is speculation.  I can get that easily enough anywhere on the Internet.  Please provide your evidence.



			
				Jackalope King said:
			
		

> :I'm always happy to remind you of what you said. Earlier, you agreed that your argument was essentially:






			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 1. In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle. It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario. We have been told for a very long time, "if it doesn't impact the game, it's better to handwave it."
> 
> 1a. The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-encounter resources don't impact the game, and hence are not significant.
> 
> 1b. The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-day resources impact the game, and hence are significant.
> 
> 1c. We are told that the problem that this design is meant to counter is resting as soon as significant (in the metagame sense) resources are depleted.
> 
> 1ci. Having greater insignificant (in the metagame sense) resources means that you can adventure longer, but also that said adventuring is not meaningful (again, in the metagame sense).




Yup.  Definitely said that, and still hold it to be true.  Wish you hadn't then snipped the part where I then concluded that win/lose scenarios would increase because they remained significant regardless.  You presented a mechanically significant win/lose encounter.  Exactly what I predicted, and which you (for some reason best known to you) chose not to include in your quotation.

You then brought up M&M, an excellent game, whereupon I immediately agreed that within the paradigm of that game mechanical significance could exist without resource attrition.  Indeed, I went so far as to claim that if a game has only per-encounter abilities, it would be easier to reach a mechanical threshold of significance than with the mixed bag that 4e will apparently present.

I also, time and again, ensured to remind others -- yourself included -- that "threshold of mechanical significance" was a term that did not imply all forms of significance in an encounter.  Shilsen gave an example of mechanical significance independent of resource attrition within the D&D paradigm, which was not win/lose, and therefore fell outside the bounds of the argument I made.  I happily acknowledged that he was correct, although I do not believe one can hang a game on the type of mechanical significance he used.  The problem is, of course, that I believe WotC _is_ trying to hang the game on mechanical significance of the type Shilsen described.

You demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, but which included a reasonalbe possiblity of loss, alllowing for as much change in resources as is possible within the paradigm of the game chosen.   Shilsen, OTOH, demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, no reasonable possibility of loss, and within the paradigm of a game with resource attritrion.  

It would be accurate to claim that, with the exception Shilsen provided, I do not believe that an encounter can be mechanically significant, _within the context of a system with resource attrition_ without a net change, _or the reasonable possibility of a net change_ in resources from before to after the encounter. 

I will therefore assume that, either through lack of clarity on my part or otherwise, your misrepresentation is unintentional.


----------



## IanArgent

I would like to point out here that it is almost always easier to kill a party than not; so reducing average lethality is on balance a Good Thing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

> So quote or retract, unless you are intentionally misrepresenting my position



Please could all parties in this discussion refrain from using this "Retract, or..." thingie? It sounds unneccessary aggressive/threatening. 

If any one feels threatened or aggressive due to the way the discussion progressed, consider taking a break. 

Maybe I should take my own advice?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Please could all parties in this discussion refrain from using this "Retract, or..." thingie? It sounds unneccessary aggressive/threatening.





Sorry.

You know, early on in (my involvement in) this discussion, I said that I use a mixed bag of per-day and per-encounter in my own homebrewed 3.X, and that it therefore matters very much how this is implemented.

Over and over, I included in my remarks things like "unless there are other factors...." (paraphrase; I haven't gone back to check my exact wording).  I have fully acknowledged that factors unknown can affect how the system implements.  I have just not seen any sign that the type of factors that would mitigate in favour are in the 4e gameplan.

So, I guess, this weekend I'll start the process of going over the entire damn thread and put the entire argument (up to this point), including links of who said what, and we'll see what the result is.   

It's a long thread; it might take a while.

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae

In my game last weekend, the PCs retreated from the dungeon after ONE encounter. I told them they were making a mockery of D&D and that the game only works when there are four encounters a day but they wouldn't listen.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sorry.
> 
> You know, early on in (my involvement in) this discussion, I said that I use a mixed bag of per-day and per-encounter in my own homebrewed 3.X, and that it therefore matters very much how this is implemented.
> 
> Over and over, I included in my remarks things like "unless there are other factors...." (paraphrase; I haven't gone back to check my exact wording).  I have fully acknowledged that factors unknown can affect how the system implements.  I have just not seen any sign that the type of factors that would mitigate in favour are in the 4e gameplan.
> 
> So, I guess, this weekend I'll start the process of going over the entire damn thread and put the entire argument (up to this point), including links of who said what, and we'll see what the result is.
> 
> It's a long thread; it might take a while.
> 
> RC



Dont't work to hard for it. I think it was pemerton that used a lot of links in one of his previous posts, and I don't think it really helped. Because few people will ever follow them. (I for sure didn't.)

And it's not like links would guarantee it any more that someone browsing through the thread and finding a post he wants to answer will also read your post linking and enhancing it.

My best advice is putting your full thought in a single post (keeping in mind the things already written) and in a way that it works without too many quotes and back-references. 

(And then wait and see how people still will not get your ideas or just happen to disagree. But don't get overworked with it. I have never seen an internet debate in which one side could persuade the other side. The only thing you can hope for is giving the undecided ones a way to formulate a decision for themselves...)


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is, btw, the exact "argument" that pemerton claimed I used, after I left the floor



Actually, I used the following paraphrase, in post #1103:

For whatever reason, you do not accept that mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, if in the end it does not result in such attrition.​
Furthermore, despite your protests, I don't feel this paraphrase to be significantly inaccurate. You may quibble over the fact that there is no reference to "win/lose" in my passage. But (as Jackelope King has pointed out) you had earlier defined "mechanical significance in the following manner:

It is basically my argument that, if you can have any number of encounters X, and at the end of those encounters you are at 80% resources, then an encounter that leaves you at 80% resources without a significant chance of loss of permanent resources falls below the mechanical threshold of significance.​
And, in your earlier definitive presentation of your argument you suggested that character death, the paradigmatic form of loss, consitutes a type of resource attrition.

You may also quibble over my lack of reference, in my paraphrase, to "significant chances". This notion does not appear in your definitive presentation, but does appear in your later basic summary.

I have thrashed this out in detail with gizmo33, but in summary, I think there is a very important distinction between encounters which pose a significant chance of loss because of the probabilities, and those which (if played well by the players) present no such chance. The latter sort of encounter can be mechanically interesting although (because the players play it well) it presents no significant chance of loss.

I tried to summarise this notion in the following ways:

At post #874:​
*We can suppose that the threat of mechanical significance (in your sense of that phrase) is present in encounters.​
"Threat" here is not equivalent to "significant chance" - it signals that such a chance may arise, but only if the encounter is played poorly.​
At post #1100:
*It is true that, once the fight is over, if per-day resouces were used it does not matter in which round they were used. Likewise, once the fight is over, if they were not used it does not matter in which rounds their use was or was not contemplated by the players. But the interest of an encounter is not something which is determined by reflection on it after it is over. It is something which unfolds within the very encounter itself - and during the encounter (i) the players do not know whether or not their per-day resources will end up being consumed or not and (ii) are able to determine whether or not they will be through their own mechanically interesting choices.​
In response to this latter post, you stated that:

*This is a win/lose situation. The players know they might win; they know they might lose. They do not know which it is going to be.​
You have given no reason for me to retract my characterisation of this as an inference from "because the players do not know, at time _T_, whether or not they will win or lose, it is therefore (objectively) a win/lose situation."

You denied that you drew such an inference. However, I have no alternative but to interpret it as an inference, because the situation I described was one in which _the players do not know whether or not their per-day resources will end up being consumed or not_, and it can only be from this description that you drew the inference that the encounter, as described, was a win/lose situation.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I also, time and again, ensured to remind others -- yourself included -- that "threshold of mechanical significance" was a term that did not imply all forms of significance in an encounter.  Shilsen gave an example of mechanical significance independent of resource attrition within the D&D paradigm, which was not win/lose, and therefore fell outside the bounds of the argument I made.



Does "outside the bounds" mean "counterexample"?



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I happily acknowledged that he was correct, although I do not believe one can hang a game on the type of mechanical significance he used.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Shilsen, OTOH, demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, no reasonable possibility of loss, and within the paradigm of a game with resource attritrion.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It would be accurate to claim that, with the exception Shilsen provided, I do not believe that an encounter can be mechanically significant, _within the context of a system with resource attrition_ without a net change, _or the reasonable possibility of a net change_ in resources from before to after the encounter.



I take it that this means you accept his counterexample, but regard it as having only limited applicability.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The problem is, of course, that I believe WotC _is_ trying to hang the game on mechanical significance of the type Shilsen described.



I have several times put forward a model, and examples, of mechanical significance which differ from that Shilsen described. In particular, these examples:

*Can operate within the paradigm of a game with per-day resources;
*Do not depend upon resource attrition;
*Are not "win/lose" scenarios.​
Assuming that these examples are plausible, they are therefore counter-examples to your position.

As I noted above, you asserted that these examples are, in fact, win/lose examples. It therefore seems to me that the crucial quesiton for this thread is this:

*Is it possible to have a mechanical frawework in which the probabilities of an encounter unfold dynamically, in response to the choices that players make about their use of PC abilities, such that (if the choices are made well) the encounter is an easy one for the PCs?​
I think the answer to this question is "yes". A good part of my reason for this is that I GM such a game (namely, RM) which involves a mix of per-day resources (spell points) and per-encounter resources (sustained adrenal moves) and round-by-round decisions about deployment of at-will resources (attack vs parry).

I think that those who take the answer to be "no" are confusing _difficult for the players_ with _difficult for the PCs_. In a purely simulationist set of mechanics, the two are of course the same. But 4e will not have a simulationist set of mechanics. We could summarise this non-simulationism thus:

*Adversity for the PC need not be adversity for the player;
*A challenge for the player need not be a challenge for the PC.​


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That isn't evidence; it is speculation.  I can get that easily enough anywhere on the Internet.  Please provide your evidence.



Got a time machine? 

Seriously, though, if you're prepared to make the claim that OD&D / 1e DMs were more likely to make a "I won't kill PCs" statement, I will be quite surprised.



> Yup.  Definitely said that, and still hold it to be true.  Wish you hadn't then snipped the part where I then concluded that win/lose scenarios would increase because they remained significant regardless.  You presented a mechanically significant win/lose encounter.  Exactly what I predicted, and which you (for some reason best known to you) chose not to include in your quotation.
> 
> You then brought up M&M, an excellent game, whereupon I immediately agreed that within the paradigm of that game mechanical significance could exist without resource attrition.  Indeed, I went so far as to claim that if a game has only per-encounter abilities, it would be easier to reach a mechanical threshold of significance than with the mixed bag that 4e will apparently present.
> 
> I also, time and again, ensured to remind others -- yourself included -- that "threshold of mechanical significance" was a term that did not imply all forms of significance in an encounter.  Shilsen gave an example of mechanical significance independent of resource attrition within the D&D paradigm, which was not win/lose, and therefore fell outside the bounds of the argument I made.  I happily acknowledged that he was correct, although I do not believe one can hang a game on the type of mechanical significance he used.  The problem is, of course, that I believe WotC _is_ trying to hang the game on mechanical significance of the type Shilsen described.
> 
> You demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, but which included a reasonalbe possiblity of loss, alllowing for as much change in resources as is possible within the paradigm of the game chosen.   Shilsen, OTOH, demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, no reasonable possibility of loss, and within the paradigm of a game with resource attritrion.
> 
> It would be accurate to claim that, with the exception Shilsen provided, I do not believe that an encounter can be mechanically significant, _within the context of a system with resource attrition_ without a net change, _or the reasonable possibility of a net change_ in resources from before to after the encounter.
> 
> I will therefore assume that, either through lack of clarity on my part or otherwise, your misrepresentation is unintentional.



My thanks for the clarification.

If I may attempt to sumarize how your view comes across to me:

1. Resource attrition / management is of mechanical signficance (_a point on which we agree, even if we enjoy it to differing degrees_).

2. The proposed 4e system changes the resource attrition / management system in such a way that the mechanical significance of resource attrition / management is reduced, if not lost (_I disagree with you here, because I feel that the emphasis is instead focused on any given encounter and managing resources within that framework_).

2a. Specifically, the proposed 4e system increases the reliance on win / lose scenarios beyond what older editions depended upon. (_I am uncertain of this, but then again, I tend to run more encounters which you would define as win / lose anyway, simply because the groups I've played with prefer the tactical challenge_).

2b. An increased number of win / lose encounters will demand that players use their strongest (and presumably per-day) resources early in order to triumph. (_I strongly disagree with this, because again, in my experience, players almost invariably use their meat-and-potatoes/bread-and-butter abilities before they're willing to expend rarer resources, even in my games where I tend to use more encounters you'd likely call win / lose_).

or

2c. An increased number of win / lose encounters will have consequences disruptive to gameplay (increased rate of character death for the average group). (_Again, I would disagree. Though I rarely kill characters, my group prefers encounters you'd call win / lose, and they've only really been defeated once in a year and a half ongoing M&M game_).

3. Since PCs will be forced more often to expend their most powerful (per-day) resources quickly just to survive, then the proposed system will not solve the 9-9:15 adventuring day. (_My disagreement here is based on my previous disagreement that players naturally lead with their most powerful and valuable resources, which in my experience, they most certainly don't. Instead, they lead with their meat-and-potatoes abilities which, if I'm understanding the previews correctly, will be per-encounter_.)

Again, if I'm misunderstanding, please correct me.


----------



## Jackelope King

pemerton said:
			
		

> <snip>
> 
> I think that those who take the answer to be "no" are confusing _difficult for the players_ with _difficult for the PCs_. In a purely simulationist set of mechanics, the two are of course the same. But 4e will not have a simulationist set of mechanics. We could summarise this non-simulationism thus:
> 
> *Adversity for the PC need not be adversity for the player;
> *A challenge for the player need not be a challenge for the PC.​



An important point which had been overlooked. Nice catch.


----------



## pemerton

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Dont't work to hard for it. I think it was pemerton that used a lot of links in one of his previous posts, and I don't think it really helped.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My best advice is putting your full thought in a single post (keeping in mind the things already written) and in a way that it works without too many quotes and back-references.



Oops, I did it again . . .   mostly because I've been accused of stupidity and misrepresentation, so want to take out some insurance.

To repeat my summary of my view, it seems to me that the crucial quesiton for this thread is this:

*Is it possible to have a mechanical frawework in which the probabilities of an encounter unfold dynamically, in response to the choices that players make about their use of PC abilities, such that (if the choices are made well) the encounter is an easy one for the PCs?​
I think the answer to this question is "yes". A good part of my reason for this is that I GM such a game (namely, RM) which involves a mix of per-day resources (spell points) and per-encounter resources (sustained adrenal moves) and round-by-round decisions about deployment of at-will resources (attack vs parry).

I think that those who take the answer to be "no" are confusing _difficult for the players_ with _difficult for the PCs_. In a purely simulationist set of mechanics, the two are of course the same. But 4e will not have a simulationist set of mechanics. We could summarise this non-simulationism thus:

*Adversity for the PC need not be adversity for the player;
*A challenge for the player need not be a challenge for the PC.​


----------



## pemerton

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> An important point which had been overlooked. Nice catch.



Thanks. I don't know if you've been following the thread that you spun of this one,  but howandwhy99 and I have been discussing this simulation thing over there, I think with more success. (Although the thread now seems to have been derailed somewhat . . .)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Seriously, though, if you're prepared to make the claim that OD&D / 1e DMs were more likely to make a "I won't kill PCs" statement, I will be quite surprised.




I recall it being specifically suggested in 2e.  In fact, it came up so often in 2e that I bought into it for some time, which absolutely destroyed the game I was running.  



> If I may attempt to sumarize how your view comes across to me:
> 
> 1. Resource attrition / management is of mechanical signficance (_a point on which we agree, even if we enjoy it to differing degrees_).




"Threshold of significance" is significance to enough degree that the aspect in question is affected in a meaningful way.  For example, if buying cheese is fun for the PCs, but does not affect the overall story of the game/adventure in a discernable degree, then it fails to meet the story threshold of significance.

Is having 80% of your resources significant?  Sure.  Is showing off your cool powers interesting?  Sometimes.  However, unless these things cause some mechanical change, they fail to pass the mechanical threshold of significance.

Perhaps I was unclear on what "threshold of significance" means; I thought it fairly self-evident.  



> 2. The proposed 4e system changes the resource attrition / management system in such a way that the mechanical significance of resource attrition / management is reduced, if not lost (_I disagree with you here, because I feel that the emphasis is instead focused on any given encounter and managing resources within that framework_).




Within the scope of a given encounter, mechanics change as resources are lost, granted.  But, unless those mechanical changes represent a clear chance of loss for the PCs, and assuming that they are "undone" after the encounter, why should the players care?

IOW, when there is a clear chance of loss, the mechanical changes are meaningful, and pass the mechanical theshold of significance.  When the mechanical changes affect other encounters in a meaningful way, they pass the mechanical theshold of significance.  Otherwise, I fail to see a circumstance where they do.  

If the focus of the game becomes managing resources within an encounter, that to me implies that each encounter (in general) must therefore make management a significant issue.  IOW, there must be a clear chance of loss.



> 2a. Specifically, the proposed 4e system increases the reliance on win / lose scenarios beyond what older editions depended upon. (_I am uncertain of this, but then again, I tend to run more encounters which you would define as win / lose anyway, simply because the groups I've played with prefer the tactical challenge_).




Again, if the only mechanical theshold of significance remains when there is a clear chance of loss, perforce the proposed 4e system increases the reliance on win/lose scenarios beyond what older editions depended upon.



> 2b. An increased number of win / lose encounters will demand that players use their strongest (and presumably per-day) resources early in order to triumph. (_I strongly disagree with this, because again, in my experience, players almost invariably use their meat-and-potatoes/bread-and-butter abilities before they're willing to expend rarer resources, even in my games where I tend to use more encounters you'd likely call win / lose_).




If resource management in each encounter becomes the primary consideration, then useage of powerful resources becomes important.  Sure, there are ways that you can design a system to make one pause before using powerful resources (AD&D 1e did this, for example), but that is not what is described in the blog entries that we have seen thus far.  If you cannot immediately regain a non-meat-and-potatoes resource, for example, then you are less likely to use it.

But, if I can end the adventuring day, then I can regain the resource, and continue to use it.



> 2c. An increased number of win / lose encounters will have consequences disruptive to gameplay (increased rate of character death for the average group). (_Again, I would disagree. Though I rarely kill characters, my group prefers encounters you'd call win / lose, and they've only really been defeated once in a year and a half ongoing M&M game_).




The greater the number of win/lose encounters you have, the greater the chance that you will eventually lose.  Again, the specifics of the system might pad against this happening, hedging against loss by including safety valves (such as core Action Points).  However, the more effective the padding, the more oomph is required to have an actual clear chance of loss, and therefore the more the DM must throw at the group to pass the mechanical theshold of significance.

I feel certain that you understand that choosing to cast a spell instead of swinging a sword may pass the mechanical theshold of significance in a given round (because one precludes the other, for example) without passing the mechanical theshold of significance for the encounter.  However, I would imagine that most players would (and do) attach greater significance to those actions that pass the mechanical thesholds of significance of both round and encounter.

Similarly, a battle can pass the mechanical theshold of significance within an encounter, but not within the adventure that the encounter occurs in.  Again, I would imagine that most players would (and do) attach greater significance to those actions that pass the mechanical thesholds of significance of both encounter and adventure.

When win/lose becomes the mechanical theshold of significance of the encounter, the odds are pretty good of also passing the MToS of the adventure if you pass the MToS of the encounter.  Encounters simply become harder.

Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is.  IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss.  Within the context of a role-playing game, there are many types of loss possible.  Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources.  (Understand, of course, that I include life, mobility, and so on as "resources" -- a "resource" in this context is anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game.)



> 3. Since PCs will be forced more often to expend their most powerful (per-day) resources quickly just to survive, then the proposed system will not solve the 9-9:15 adventuring day. (_My disagreement here is based on my previous disagreement that players naturally lead with their most powerful and valuable resources, which in my experience, they most certainly don't. Instead, they lead with their meat-and-potatoes abilities which, if I'm understanding the previews correctly, will be per-encounter_.)




Since PCs in 3e are not forced more often to expend their most powerful (per-day) resources quickly just to survive, then being forced isn't the issue.  (Obviously, though, being forced would create an issue.)  If I used the word "forced" earlier, it was a bad choice of words.  Let me instead say "encouraged".

If I know that I have a significant chance of losing in any given encounter, _and no other factor presents itself_, I would be an idiot not to use my best abilities to defeat that encounter.  I am not forced to use them.  I am merely encouraged to use them.

If I know that the everage encounter includes a significant chance of losing, _and no other factor presents itself_, I would be an idiot not to ensure that I have my best abilities available to defeat that encounter.  I am not forced to have them.  I am merely encouraged to have them.

Previous editions forced players to factor between these extremes:  Is it better to use this now, or save it for a tougher encounter later?  

If, OTOH, you can _both_ use it now, _and_ save it for a tougher encounter later, there is no question as to what the prudent course of action is.  3.0 introduced this problem in a big way by making it very easy for PCs to rest, and very difficult for that rest to be believeably (within the context of the system) disturbed.  This meant, effectively, that any major resource could be reset after each encounter, leading to the 9-9:15 adventuring day.

The proposed solution (give more resources that automatically regenerate so that the PCs will not have to rest) will not solve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem because:

(1)  Unless the non-per-encounter powers are complete throw-aways, they will perforce become more important because they are the only resources targettable to achieve a mechanical theshold of significance greater than that of the combat round.

(2)  So long as players experiencing this problem (again in general) both can use their best powers, and can have them back afterwards, they will.



> Again, if I'm misunderstanding, please correct me.




I hope that helped.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> (_My disagreement here is based on my previous disagreement that players naturally lead with their most powerful and valuable resources, which in my experience, they most certainly don't. Instead, they lead with their meat-and-potatoes abilities which, if I'm understanding the previews correctly, will be per-encounter_.)





Here's a question for you:  Why do your players lead with their mean-and-potatoes abilities?


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I recall it being specifically suggested in 2e.  In fact, it came up so often in 2e that I bought into it for some time, which absolutely destroyed the game I was running.




... because D&D came into existence with 2E, you know.



> When win/lose becomes the mechanical theshold of significance of the encounter, the odds are pretty good of also passing the MToS of the adventure if you pass the MToS of the encounter.  Encounters simply become harder.




As in, "more fun to play". But for some reason, more fun == bad in the Crowking world.



> The proposed solution (give more resources that automatically regenerate so that the PCs will not have to rest) will not solve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem because:
> 
> (1)  Unless the non-per-encounter powers are complete throw-aways, they will perforce become more important because they are the only resources targettable to achieve a mechanical theshold of significance greater than that of the combat round.
> 
> (2)  So long as players experiencing this problem (again in general) both can use their best powers, and can have them back afterwards, they will.




The first encounter in a day might cause the 1/day resurrect to get blown. Or it might not.

The first encounter in a day might require the 1/day teleport to get the party the hell out of there. Or it might not.

The first encounter in a day might make the 1/day meteor swarm get pulled out. Or it might not.

It all comes down to the specifics of the encounter, judgement, skill and luck, all of which are random factors to a greater or lesser extent. But for some reason, luck is deterministic in the Crowking world.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I hope that helped.
> 
> RC



Quite. Let me focus in on one particular point.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is.  IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss.  Within the context of a role-playing game, there are many types of loss possible.  Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources.  (Understand, of course, that I include life, mobility, and so on as "resources" -- a "resource" in this context is anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game.)



Here I'd require more clarification. You define "resources" as "anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game". That seems accurate. However, how would you weigh the impact of _conditions_ on a character? They affect the means by which characters can mechanically affect the game (either positively for buffs or negatively for impairments), but aren't necessarily a resource in and of themselves.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Here I'd require more clarification. You define "resources" as "anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game". That seems accurate. However, how would you weigh the impact of _conditions_ on a character? They affect the means by which characters can mechanically affect the game (either positively for buffs or negatively for impairments), but aren't necessarily a resource in and of themselves.





I would say that a "condition" (as defined either in 3.X or in M&M) materially affects resources so long as that condition is in play.

RC


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I would imagine that most players would (and do) attach greater significance to those actions that pass the mechanical thesholds of significance of both round and encounter.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I would imagine that most players would (and do) attach greater significance to those actions that pass the mechanical thesholds of significance of both encounter and adventure.



I think that this depends entirely on how difficult the round or the encounter in question is for the players to play out, and how it relates to the adventure.

In my games, sometimes it is a particular round that is highly memorable, but mostly it is particular encounters. And their memorability is largely a function of the challenge they posed to the players. Some of these memorable encounters were adventure-shaping ones, but some are essentially side quests.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> when there is a clear chance of loss, the mechanical changes are meaningful, and pass the mechanical theshold of significance.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If the focus of the game becomes managing resources within an encounter, that to me implies that each encounter (in general) must therefore make management a significant issue.  IOW, there must be a clear chance of loss.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If resource management in each encounter becomes the primary consideration, then useage of powerful resources becomes important.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The greater the number of win/lose encounters you have, the greater the chance that you will eventually lose.  Again, the specifics of the system might pad against this happening, hedging against loss by including safety valves (such as core Action Points).  However, the more effective the padding, the more oomph is required to have an actual clear chance of loss, and therefore the more the DM must throw at the group to pass the mechanical theshold of significance.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When win/lose becomes the mechanical theshold of significance of the encounter, the odds are pretty good of also passing the MToS of the adventure if you pass the MToS of the encounter.  Encounters simply become harder.
> 
> Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is.  IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If I know that I have a significant chance of losing in any given encounter, _and no other factor presents itself_, I would be an idiot not to use my best abilities to defeat that encounter.  I am not forced to use them.  I am merely encouraged to use them.



It seems clear to me that, in these passages, you are equating "challenging for PCs" with "challenging for players", "powerful PC ability" with "powerful player ability", "loss for the PC" with "loss for the player", etc. In 4e I doubt that these equations will hold.

For example, a PC's most powerful ability might be their meteor swarm, but the players most powerful ability will be their knowledge of the action resolution mechanics, and their capacity to optimise a sequence of decisions within that mechanical framework. An encounter that is challenging (and therefore enjoyable) will be one that taxes this player skill. An encounter may do this without being challenging for the PC (in that, if the player plays well, the PC wins with little chance of loss). And, finally, an encounter which is a loss for the player will be one in which they play poorly, and therefore expose their PC to challenges that they need not have. In such circumstances, the PC may or may not lose, depending on how the dice unfold.

Action Points are essentially orthogonal to this. They are not a "buffer" which creates a need for more "oomph". They are a buffer, but they are a buffer for when the player plays poorly, and wants to save his/her PC from the consequence. In other words, they don't insure against higher numbers (and thus lead to number inflation), but against misplay of complex abilities.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> It all comes down to the specifics of the encounter, judgement, skill and luck, all of which are random factors to a greater or lesser extent.



I agree it all comes down to specifics. But I think that, if they are to do their job properly, the per-encounter abilities must make it possible for the players to make their own luck by playing skillfully.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Here's a question for you:  Why do your players lead with their mean-and-potatoes abilities?



Within the encounter: We don't know who the real threat is. Using the more powerful ability (that might be available only once per day) early might mean that I waste it on the wrong target. 

Over multiple encounters: I don't know if this encounter will contain threats significant enough so that the usage of the most powerful powers is necessary, or if it will be the next. Or whether I or other players will make grave tactical mistakes or just have a string of bad rolls in a later encounter that will require a more decisive power to aid in the player sides success or at least their survival.

Now, in a system with a fair amount of at will and per encounter abilities, these will be the "meat and potatoes" abilities. The abilities I will use sparingly are those that are only available a limited amount per day. 

A difference between 3rd (and previous) editions and the 4th seems to be that both the "meat and potatoes" abilities and the more powerful ones are all limited per day. This means you will run out of "meat and potatoes" abilities (a 9th level spellcaster running out of Magic Missiles and Scorching Rays), and either have to choose the more powerful ones, or choose to retreat. If I expect that retreating/resting will not be without its own dangers, the chances for an early retreat are increasing.


----------



## Jackelope King

_double post_


----------



## wgreen

Just thought I'd poke my head in and suggest a related reason for the 15-minute adventuring day problem -- buffs, which, I believe, the designers have mentioned working on.

-Will


----------



## IanArgent

pemerton said:
			
		

> It seems clear to me that, in these passages, you are equating "challenging for PCs" with "challenging for players", "powerful PC ability" with "powerful player ability", "loss for the PC" with "loss for the player", etc. In 4e I doubt that these equations will hold.




Thank you for articulating one of the things I've been trying to get at - characters != players.

And I still maintain the test of a GMs skill is not in killing the characters, it's _not_ killing the characters. Anyone can achieve TPK with little effort. It's challenging the players that the GM should aspire to.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Here's a question for you:  Why do your players lead with their mean-and-potatoes abilities?



My appologies for missing this earlier post, RC.

Since I've actually been a player (in addition to GM) with my D&D group, I have a fair knowledge of the process they go through to decide how to expend resources (and I'll try to stay to the terminology you've used with resources).

1. Understand that ideally, a player wants to utilize the minimum amount of resources to reduce an opponent to a helpless (usually -1 HP) condition in the minimum amount of time possible. If it would always result in this outcome, player would be happiest if they could just use a single magic missile on each enemy they fought to minimize resource expenditure.

2. The reason player want to minimize their resource expenditure is because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource. To them, it's silly to "waste" the extra damage from a greater resource if a lesser resource would've gotten the same job done. To use an example which has been tossed around, if faced with a single standard kobold, a 20th level wizard isn't going to break out Gate or Meteor Swarm, especially not when a Magic Missile will do the same job at the same speed.

3. However, players also don't want to waste a turn. They usually get disappointed when they try something and nothing beneficial happens. This is why there is usually a minimum theshold of effectiveness for resources, and why you'll often see players using mid-level spells (for example) instead of being extremely conservative and just using very low-level spells. Mid-level spells strike an acceptable balance for most players between cost (in that they are fairly plentiful) and effectiveness (in that they will have an acceptable level of effect on most enemies).

4. As I learned from my players speculating on their actions for a round by asking, "What's everyone's HP at?", players factor another resource into this calculation: hit points. Ideally, players want to minimize damage to themselves to avoid vulnerability.

5. Remember that hit point damage is a sort of "reactive resource" in that it can be negated by healing magic. Different types of healing have different costs.

6. In a round-about way, players tend to measure the cost to their group to spend a resource in the hopes of ending a fight _more quickly_ versus the resource cost the group with accrue latter in the cost of healing magic restoring them of the damage that the characters will take on a subsequent round. Many times, I'll hear players rationalize saving a charge on their _wand of fireball_ when someone points out that, "This guy is only doing like 8 damage, and we've got a _wand of cure light wounds_ anyway.[/i]" The cost of using sufficient healing magic is below the cost of using the most effective means of destroying an enemy, so the party will err on the side of using a less-costly resource.

Now would I expect my players to be able to vocalize this logic? Probably not. But I've seen it enough, and the differences in their perceptions/actions based on whether or not they have access to magical healing to know that they tend to assign value to resources mentally in such a way.

I think that the "lead with your best resource" mentality comes about if the value of offensive resources (such as your most-damaging spell) comes to be seen as lower than healing magic, which could be explained by noting that "my level-9 spell will just come back after we rest anyway". If it can be regained quickly, in such a way to minimize the possibility that a player will be left without that resource in a later encounter, then the value of resources might indeed be lowered.

It's all a matter of minimizing the cost in resources-per-encounter. Sometimes it's more acceptable to allow an enemy to injure you for three rounds rather than end the fight in one simply because the means to recover from those injuries is less costly than the means to end the fight in one round.


----------



## Jackelope King

And I think that this is important to address the point pemerton made about being able to challenge the player, even if the characters themselves aren't particularly at-risk. A non-mechanical example of this would be a puzzle like the riddle at the entrance to Moria in Fellowship. In a roleplaying game, you could say that the characters in the Fellowship were at little mechanical risk in this challenge, but it still served as a challenge for their players. In more-mechanical examples, something like a chase (with actual chase rules, which include different options for catching/evading) where the PCs must capture an enemy before he gets out of the city. Odds are, the PCs are in very little mechanical risk in such an encounter, but it can still be a very exciting challenge to the players, who need to plan their chase carefully if they want to aprehend their target.

Another version of this would be "social combat". I ran something very much like this in an _New X-Men/Academy X_ M&M game, where the PCs were trying to convince a young mutant to come to Xavier's while Magneto tried to coerce the young mutant into joining his side. The PCs were at zero mechanical risk in this encounter, as this was more of a "charming revolutionary" Magneto than a "psychopathic mass-murderer" Magneto. The worst case scenario would not result in any sort of mechanical risk to the PCs: they'd only lose a story-based resource in the form of a new student to their enemy. Each side attempted opposed checks (mostly Diplomacy, but also Bluffing and Intimidating at times) to persuade the boy to join them. This challenged the players to come up with arguments for why a child should come to Xavier's instead of joining Magneto without any mechanical risk whatsoever to the characters.

It's certainly possible to challenge the players without necessarily risking the PCs.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> 1. Understand that ideally, a player wants to utilize the minimum amount of resources to reduce an opponent to a helpless (usually -1 HP) condition in the minimum amount of time possible.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 2. The reason player want to minimize their resource expenditure is because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource.




So, if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure?

Indeed, if 



> 3. However, players also don't want to waste a turn. They usually get disappointed when they try something and nothing beneficial happens. This is why there is usually a minimum theshold of effectiveness for resources




is true, then if you remove the fear of greater risk at a later time, then isn't using your best resource the easiest way to ensure that you are not disappointed?  Is it not also the easiest way to keep the combat short, and thereby



> minimize damage to themselves to avoid vulnerability.




It would certainly seem so to me.  After all,



> players tend to measure the cost to their group to spend a resource in the hopes of ending a fight _more quickly_ versus the resource cost the group with accrue latter in the cost of healing magic restoring them of the damage that the characters will take on a subsequent round.




So, it makes sense that you'll



> hear players rationalize saving a charge on their _wand of fireball_ when someone points out that, "This guy is only doing like 8 damage, and we've got a _wand of cure light wounds_ anyway.[/i]"




because the wand of fireball is a non-renewing resource.  But do they do the same thing with renewable resources?  For example, if I could cast that fireball in every encounter, would the players rather use the wand of cure light wounds?

Because the reality is that if I can use my offensive resources in every encounter, the value of offensive resources is as low or lower than healing magic, which can be achieved by noting that "my level-9 spell will just come back after we rest anyway".

As you say,



> If it can be regained quickly, in such a way to minimize the possibility that a player will be left without that resource in a later encounter, then the value of resources might indeed be lowered.




If I can rest and recover all spells, but do not recover all hit points, as in 3.X, and I can do it without difficulty or worry between every encounter, then it is _*never*_ less costly to recover from injury than to recover offensive resources.

Moreover, within the context of a single round in a hit point system, I will never die because I used all of my offensive resources as a direct cause, but I will die because I lost all my hit points as a direct cause.  Where resources are recoverable between encounters, _failure_ to use a resource within a given encounter is far more likely to kill you than _doing maximum damage every round_, starting with highest damage potential to lowest.

IOW, for it to be true that 



> Sometimes it's more acceptable to allow an enemy to injure you for three rounds rather than end the fight in one simply because the means to recover from those injuries is less costly than the means to end the fight in one round.




there must first be a cost to ending the fight in one round.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> It's certainly possible to challenge the players without necessarily risking the PCs.





Yes, but we are discussing game mechanics, and their effects on a specific problem.  

It is also possible to photograph penguins in Antarctica.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> <snip>



I'm sorry, but as you wrote this, it's borderline incomprehensible. You _seem_ to be saying that you can always regain an offensive ability but _not_ always regain damage, so every single offensive ability (even the most powerful ones) are _less_ valuable than _any_ healing ability. That doesn't make any sense.




			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, but we are discussing game mechanics, and their effects on a specific problem.
> 
> It is also possible to photograph penguins in Antarctica.
> 
> 
> RC



I guess it never occured to you that those examples (the chase example and the social combat example) were resolved mechanically then.


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, but we are discussing game mechanics, and their effects on a specific problem.
> 
> It is also possible to photograph penguins in Antarctica.
> 
> 
> RC




That may be part of the misunderstanding. I'm discussing game design, _not_ game mechanics. Mechanics are part of game design, to be sure, but not the alpha and omega of it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but as you wrote this, it's borderline incomprehensible. You _seem_ to be saying that you can always regain an offensive ability but _not_ always regain damage, so every single offensive ability (even the most powerful ones) are _less_ valuable than _any_ healing ability. That doesn't make any sense.





If a player wants to utilize the minimum amount of resources to reduce an opponent to a helpless condition in the minimum amount of time possible, and the reason players want to minimize their resource expenditure is because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource, it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible.

If players also don't want to waste a turn, when they try something and nothing beneficial happens, they want to try whatever is most likely to work.  This is why there is usually a minimum theshold of effectiveness for resources.  Using the resource most likely to incapacitate the enemy is the easiest way to ensure that you do not waste a turn, and thus are not disappointed.

It is also the easiest way to keep the combat short, and thereby minimize damage to themselves to avoid vulnerability.  

Players tend to measure the cost to spend a resource in the hopes of ending a fight more quickly versus the cost of healing magic restoring later.  In other words, they want to minimize their costs while maximizing their benefit.  As a result of this, you'll hear players rationalize saving a charge on their wand of fireball when someone points out that, "This guy is only doing like 8 damage, and we've got a wand of cure light wounds anyway."  

But there is a cost to using the wand of fireball because it is a non-renewing resource.  If the players could cast that fireball in every encounter, it would cost less than the wand of cure light wounds.  When players can use their offensive resources in every encounter, the cost of offensive resources is as low or lower than healing magic.

If all of your offensive abilities reset between encounters, this is true.

If I can rest and recover all spells, and I can do it without difficulty or worry between every encounter, then it is never less costly to recover from injury than to recover offensive resources.

Moreover, within the context of a single round in a hit point system, I will never die because I used all of my offensive resources as a direct cause, but I will die because I lost all my hit points as a direct cause. Where resources are recoverable between encounters, failure to use a resource within a given encounter is far more likely to kill you than doing maximum damage every round, starting with highest damage potential to lowest.

IOW, for it to be true that it is sometimes more acceptable to allow an enemy to injure you for three rounds rather than end the fight in one simply because the means to recover from those injuries is less costly than the means to end the fight in one round, there must first be a cost to ending the fight in one round.



> I guess it never occured to you that those examples (the chase example and the social combat example) were resolved mechanically then.




I am no longer reading pemerton's posts, so it would be difficult to know their contents.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> A non-mechanical example of this would be a puzzle like the riddle at the entrance to Moria in Fellowship. In a roleplaying game, you could say that the characters in the Fellowship were at little mechanical risk in this challenge, but it still served as a challenge for their players.




How does this contradict what I said?

Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is. IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. *Within the context of a role-playing game, there are many types of loss possible.* Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources. (Understand, of course, that I include life, mobility, and so on as "resources" -- a "resource" in this context is anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game.)​


> In more-mechanical examples, something like a chase (with actual chase rules, which include different options for catching/evading) where the PCs must capture an enemy before he gets out of the city. Odds are, the PCs are in very little mechanical risk in such an encounter, but it can still be a very exciting challenge to the players, who need to plan their chase carefully if they want to aprehend their target.




Again,

there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss.  Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources.​
I.e., within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, the only "loss" is loss of resources.  Mechanics might be used to resolve another type of "loss" (relating to story, etc.) but it isn't a mechanical loss.  

IOW, "mechanical abilities/qualities = resources", and "loss of mechanical abilities/qualities = loss of resources".

Or, perhaps it would have been more clear as 

there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss.  Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, mechanical loss is loss of resources.​
EDIT:  I should probably also mentioned the existence of non-mechanical resources, such as information, because it is germaine to an actual solution to the 15-minute adventuring day problem, if not relevant to the solution Wyatt suggests.

Clearer?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> That may be part of the misunderstanding. I'm discussing game design, _not_ game mechanics. Mechanics are part of game design, to be sure, but not the alpha and omega of it.





Whereas I'm only discussing one subset of mechanics/design:  Will per-encounter abilities resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem for those who experienced it in 3.X, as claimed by Wyatt's blog?


----------



## pemerton

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Thank you for articulating one of the things I've been trying to get at - characters != players.



No worries.



			
				IanArgent said:
			
		

> And I still maintain the test of a GMs skill is not in killing the characters, it's _not_ killing the characters. Anyone can achieve TPK with little effort. It's challenging the players that the GM should aspire to.



Agreed - and in general I agree with your other posts too (especially about the relationship between per-encounter and adventure design).


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If a player wants to utilize the minimum amount of resources to reduce an opponent to a helpless condition in the minimum amount of time possible, and the reason players want to minimize their resource expenditure is because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource, it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible.



A small point of logic.

You argue:

If players choose A, and the reason for choosing A is B, and not B, then it follows that players will not choose A.​
This inference is valid only if a further premise is asserted (or presupposed), namely, that in the absence of B no other reason emerges that supports players choosing A.

Until we know how per-encounter powers are designed, we cannot know whether or not that premise is true - but Wyatt's remarks about effective power design suggest to me that the designers have this issue in mind, and are working on it.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am no longer reading pemerton's posts, so it would be difficult to know their contents.



The examples Jackelope refers to are his, not mine.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How does this contradict what I said?
> 
> Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is. IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. *Within the context of a role-playing game, there are many types of loss possible.* Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources. (Understand, of course, that I include life, mobility, and so on as "resources" -- a "resource" in this context is anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game.)​
> <snip>
> 
> there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss.  Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources.​
> I.e., within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, the only "loss" is loss of resources.  Mechanics might be used to resolve another type of "loss" (relating to story, etc.) but it isn't a mechanical loss.
> 
> IOW, "mechanical abilities/qualities = resources", and "loss of mechanical abilities/qualities = loss of resources".
> 
> Or, perhaps it would have been more clear as
> 
> there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss.  Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, mechanical loss is loss of resources.​



First, there can be mechanical losses which are not the loss of resources - Jackelope King gave the example above of _conditions_. You asserted above that this materially affects resources. But it does not affect them by reducing them. For example, a penalty of -2 on all attack and damage rolls, checks and saves does not affect the range or number of resources that a 3E fighter has available, just their potency.

Second, within the context of the mechanics of a roleplaying game there can be losses which are not themselves mechanical as all, as Jackelope King has pointed out. For example, the resolution of a social challenge might result in the PC making an enemy when s/he had hoped to win an ally. This is a loss, and it is the result of the action resolution mechanics, but it is not itself a mechanical loss (assuming that the game is not one in which alliances and enmities are themselves represented in mechanical terms).

Unless, of course, when you say that "a resource is anything that you can use to mechanically affect a game" you really intend to be taken literally. Because in that case, every arrangement of every in-game person and object, and every in-game event, is a resource, because all can mechanically affect the game in some way or other (eg enemies can set foes on a PC). But if that is so, then no RPG I'm aware of has pure per-encounter resources, because no RPG I'm aware of resets the gameworld after every encounter. And in terms of the 15-minute adventuring day, these omni-present resource considerations would seem easily sufficient to give the players a reason not always to lead with their per-day resources, even if (contrary to what I believe will be the case) no such constraint emerged within the internal logic of the action resolution mechanics.


----------



## hong

pemerton said:
			
		

> The examples Jackelope refers to are his, not mine.




It's just RC's way of saying that he doesn't love you anymore.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If a player wants to utilize the minimum amount of resources to reduce an opponent to a helpless condition in the minimum amount of time possible, and the reason players want to minimize their resource expenditure is because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource, it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible.
> 
> If players also don't want to waste a turn, when they try something and nothing beneficial happens, they want to try whatever is most likely to work.  This is why there is usually a minimum theshold of effectiveness for resources.  Using the resource most likely to incapacitate the enemy is the easiest way to ensure that you do not waste a turn, and thus are not disappointed.
> 
> It is also the easiest way to keep the combat short, and thereby minimize damage to themselves to avoid vulnerability.
> 
> Players tend to measure the cost to spend a resource in the hopes of ending a fight more quickly versus the cost of healing magic restoring later.  In other words, they want to minimize their costs while maximizing their benefit.  As a result of this, you'll hear players rationalize saving a charge on their wand of fireball when someone points out that, "This guy is only doing like 8 damage, and we've got a wand of cure light wounds anyway."
> 
> But there is a cost to using the wand of fireball because it is a non-renewing resource.  If the players could cast that fireball in every encounter, it would cost less than the wand of cure light wounds.  When players can use their offensive resources in every encounter, the cost of offensive resources is as low or lower than healing magic.
> 
> If all of your offensive abilities reset between encounters, this is true.
> 
> If I can rest and recover all spells, and I can do it without difficulty or worry between every encounter, then it is never less costly to recover from injury than to recover offensive resources.
> 
> Moreover, within the context of a single round in a hit point system, I will never die because I used all of my offensive resources as a direct cause, but I will die because I lost all my hit points as a direct cause. Where resources are recoverable between encounters, failure to use a resource within a given encounter is far more likely to kill you than doing maximum damage every round, starting with highest damage potential to lowest.
> 
> IOW, for it to be true that it is sometimes more acceptable to allow an enemy to injure you for three rounds rather than end the fight in one simply because the means to recover from those injuries is less costly than the means to end the fight in one round, there must first be a cost to ending the fight in one round.




If and only if you can regain the ability immediately following an encounter with no cost. This was a problem in 3e with casters novaing and spending a day's worth of resources quickly and then resting, avoiding the power curve designers predicted which would bring casters into line with non-casters.



> I am no longer reading pemerton's posts, so it would be difficult to know their contents.




First, you're doing yourself a tremendous disservice by ignoring pemerton. He's been making quite a few points which really do shed new light on the situation. And I was the one who mentioned the chase and the social combat.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How does this contradict what I said?
> 
> Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is. IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. *Within the context of a role-playing game, there are many types of loss possible.* Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources. (Understand, of course, that I include life, mobility, and so on as "resources" -- a "resource" in this context is anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game.)​




Interestingly, your definition closely mirrors my own. You are including "anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game", which would include resources which are infinite-use and can be renewed instantly.



> Again,
> 
> there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss.  Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources.​
> I.e., within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, the only "loss" is loss of resources.  Mechanics might be used to resolve another type of "loss" (relating to story, etc.) but it isn't a mechanical loss.
> 
> IOW, "mechanical abilities/qualities = resources", and "loss of mechanical abilities/qualities = loss of resources".
> 
> Or, perhaps it would have been more clear as
> 
> there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss.  Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, mechanical loss is loss of resources.​
> EDIT:  I should probably also mentioned the existence of non-mechanical resources, such as information, because it is germaine to an actual solution to the 15-minute adventuring day problem, if not relevant to the solution Wyatt suggests.
> 
> Clearer?
> 
> 
> RC



Much. You agree that resources can be modified even if they aren't loss, a point which pemerton makes much more clearly than I have:



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> First, there can be mechanical losses which are not the loss of resources - Jackelope King gave the example above of _conditions_. You asserted above that this materially affects resources. But it does not affect them by reducing them. For example, a penalty of -2 on all attack and damage rolls, checks and saves does not affect the range or number of resources that a 3E fighter has available, just their potency.
> 
> Second, within the context of the mechanics of a roleplaying game there can be losses which are not themselves mechanical as all, as Jackelope King has pointed out. For example, the resolution of a social challenge might result in the PC making an enemy when s/he had hoped to win an ally. This is a loss, and it is the result of the action resolution mechanics, but it is not itself a mechanical loss (assuming that the game is not one in which alliances and enmities are themselves represented in mechanical terms).
> 
> Unless, of course, when you say that "a resource is anything that you can use to mechanically affect a game" you really intend to be taken literally. Because in that case, every arrangement of every in-game person and object, and every in-game event, is a resource, because all can mechanically affect the game in some way or other (eg enemies can set foes on a PC). But if that is so, then no RPG I'm aware of has pure per-encounter resources, because no RPG I'm aware of resets the gameworld after every encounter. And in terms of the 15-minute adventuring day, these omni-present resource considerations would seem easily sufficient to give the players a reason not always to lead with their per-day resources, even if (contrary to what I believe will be the case) no such constraint emerged within the internal logic of the action resolution mechanics.





			
				hong said:
			
		

> It's just RC's way of saying that he doesn't love you anymore.



That's so anime.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Whereas I'm only discussing one subset of mechanics/design:  Will per-encounter abilities resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem for those who experienced it in 3.X, as claimed by Wyatt's blog?



Purely per encounter based abilities? Yes. There is no point to rest after 15 minutes of fighting. The only reason to rest might be other things (needing to rest for leveling, overland-travel and so on)

A mixed system: Depends on how important the per day resources are. If they represent 20 % of the fighting power, this means you can "overextend" your expected resources per encounter only by these 20 %. Sounds like good limit, it is far from the +200 % (EL = PL+4) to 400 %  (EL=PL) difference possible in 3rd edition. (Remember: EL=PL costs 25 % of resources, which means I have 4 times as much resources as I need at my disposable. EL = PL +4 gives a 50 % success chance, indicating I will lose 50 % of my resources, so I have still twice as much resources as absolutely required)

Usage of daily based resources is always guided by attrition concerns - will I need them at a later time more than I need them now. If they only add +20% to my power, the answer is probably that good tactics mean that I won't need them, and can use them when things get really tough and/or my group made tactically bad choices (or just had a string of bad rolls)
Now, if I don't care about good tactics and just enjoy shooting my most powerful spells around, the 20 % might be used up in my first encounter. But will they suffice? I got only a 20 % power boost, not a +300 % boost...


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am no longer reading pemerton's posts, so it would be difficult to know their contents.




You know, I never even thought of taking that approach. If I skip over all your posts this thread suddenly starts making sense again 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Whereas I'm only discussing one subset of mechanics/design: Will per-encounter abilities resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem for those who experienced it in 3.X, as claimed by Wyatt's blog?






			
				Mustrum Ridcully said:
			
		

> Purely per encounter based abilities? Yes. There is no point to rest after 15 minutes of fighting. The only reason to rest might be other things (needing to rest for leveling, overland-travel and so on)
> 
> A mixed system: Depends on how important the per day resources are.




You know, Mustrum, you have to stop saying things succinctly and accurately. It makes everyone else look bad. The bit I quoted above could - and should - replace some 30 of the pages on this thread.

In short - QFT.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> If and only if you can regain the ability immediately following an encounter with no cost. This was a problem in 3e with casters novaing and spending a day's worth of resources quickly and then resting, avoiding the power curve designers predicted which would bring casters into line with non-casters.




Exactly my point, going back Lo these many pages.

If you want players to engage in a cost/benefit analysis of using particular resources, there must be a cost associated.  In 3.X, the designers imagined that the cost would be loss of the resource for future encounters, because that was the paradigm that had worked in previous editions.  However, at the same time, they removed nearly all of the cost associated with resting to regain that resource, and activley (via articles on the WotC site) solicited DMs to ignore/not use other costs (such as the chance of wandering monsters, deemed "unfun" in one particular article).

If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used.



> you're doing yourself a tremendous disservice by ignoring pemerton.




I don't think so.  For example:



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a player wants to utilize the minimum amount of resources to reduce an opponent to a helpless condition in the minimum amount of time possible, and the reason players want to minimize their resource expenditure is because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource, it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A small point of logic.
> 
> You argue:
> 
> If players choose A, and the reason for choosing A is B, and not B, then it follows that players will not choose A.
> 
> This inference is valid only if a further premise is asserted (or presupposed), namely, that in the absence of B no other reason emerges that supports players choosing A.
Click to expand...



Now, given what pemerton was responding to, what are A and B in this context?  I discuss players choosing to use resources, so the choice involved must be A.  Presumably, then, A represents the non-use of a resource.

Now, as B is proposed as the cause of A, what do I claim is the causing players to avoid using that resource?   Because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource.

Pemerton therefore argues that the conclusion (it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible) is only true if there is no other mitigating factor.

Clear and sensible, right?

Also a repetition of a previous poster (emphasis unchanged):

If I know that I have a significant chance of losing in any given encounter, _and no other factor presents itself_, I would be an idiot not to use my best abilities to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to use them. I am merely encouraged to use them.

If I know that the everage encounter includes a significant chance of losing, _and no other factor presents itself_, I would be an idiot not to ensure that I have my best abilities available to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to have them. I am merely encouraged to have them.​
Any idea who that poster was?

And, having made the same point many times in the past, do you honestly think that this (or any other) conversation would be well served by pedantically inserting every caveat into every post?  I am already accused of making my responses too long.

So, no, I don't think these side trips are worthwhile.



> Interestingly, your definition closely mirrors my own. You are including "anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game", which would include resources which are infinite-use and can be renewed instantly.




Yes.  And, I would also say that modification of a resource that limits what you can do with a resource is a loss, even if only a temporary one.  Loss doesn't need to be permanent to be loss.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> You know, I never even thought of taking that approach. If I skip over all your posts this thread suddenly starts making sense again




Then, by all means, do so!



> You know, Mustrum, you have to stop saying things succinctly and accurately. It makes everyone else look bad. The bit I quoted above could - and should - replace some 30 of the pages on this thread.




My first post on this thread is a compliment of something Mustrum_Ridcully posted, and a hope that the design team does as well.  Indeed, if Mustrum_Ridcully (and some other EN World luminaries) were on the design team, it would allay many of my fears.

RC


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Then, by all means, do so!




That's the worst attempt to get the last word I've ever seen.



> My first post on this thread is a compliment of something Mustrum_Ridcully posted, and a hope that the design team does as well.  Indeed, if Mustrum_Ridcully (and some other EN World luminaries) were on the design team, it would allay many of my fears.




But that was no fun.


----------



## hong

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> That's so anime.




No, it's munchkin. It would only be anime if a giant sweatdrop appeared in Crowking world when he did it.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Exactly my point, going back Lo these many pages.
> 
> If you want players to engage in a cost/benefit analysis of using particular resources, there must be a cost associated.  In 3.X, the designers imagined that the cost would be loss of the resource for future encounters, because that was the paradigm that had worked in previous editions.  However, at the same time, they removed nearly all of the cost associated with resting to regain that resource, and activley (via articles on the WotC site) solicited DMs to ignore/not use other costs (such as the chance of wandering monsters, deemed "unfun" in one particular article).
> 
> If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used.



And why does that logic not apply to per-encounter resources?

I don't think so.  For example:



Now, given what pemerton was responding to, what are A and B in this context?  I discuss players choosing to use resources, so the choice involved must be A.  Presumably, then, A represents the non-use of a resource.

Now, as B is proposed as the cause of A, what do I claim is the causing players to avoid using that resource?   Because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource.

Pemerton therefore argues that the conclusion (it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible) is only true if there is no other mitigating factor.

Clear and sensible, right?

Also a repetition of a previous poster (emphasis unchanged):

If I know that I have a significant chance of losing in any given encounter, _and no other factor presents itself_, I would be an idiot not to use my best abilities to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to use them. I am merely encouraged to use them.

If I know that the everage encounter includes a significant chance of losing, _and no other factor presents itself_, I would be an idiot not to ensure that I have my best abilities available to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to have them. I am merely encouraged to have them.​
Any idea who that poster was?

And, having made the same point many times in the past, do you honestly think that this (or any other) conversation would be well served by pedantically inserting every caveat into every post?  I am already accused of making my responses too long.

So, no, I don't think these side trips are worthwhile.[/quote]
You're caught between denying the antecedent and contradicting yourself. You have already said,



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used.



So you would be an idiot for using a per-encounter resource if you had a more powerful per-day one, but you'd also be an idiot to use a resource if it had a high associated cost? Ouch. One heck of a catch-22.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes.  And, I would also say that modification of a resource that limits what you can do with a resource is a loss, even if only a temporary one.  Loss doesn't need to be permanent to be loss.
> 
> RC



So you also agree that in a system with conditions which have a mechanical impact upon the ability of an afflicted party to interact positively with the mechanics of the game world, then an encounter does not need to be as binary as win / lose, where "losing" for the average group means "death", as you have implied in the past?


----------



## shilsen

hong said:
			
		

> That's the worst attempt to get the last word I've ever seen.




Actually, I think that description could be better applied to this thread as a whole.


----------



## Raven Crowking

JK, your formatting is screwed up, making it difficult to answer.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And why does that logic not apply to per-encounter resources?




It does.  "If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used" is, AFAICT, a pretty universal statement.

If that logic did not apply to per-encounter resources, then the switch to per-encounter resources would solve the problem, as Wyatt suggests.



> You're caught between denying the antecedent and contradicting yourself. You have already said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be an idiot for using a per-encounter resource if you had a more powerful per-day one, but you'd also be an idiot to use a resource if it had a high associated cost? Ouch. One heck of a catch-22.
Click to expand...



No, I would be an idiot for using a per-encounter resource if I had a more powerful per-day one, _there is no cost to using it_.  Likewise, I would be an idiot to use a resource if it had a high associated cost _and I could accomplish my goal without using it_.

It is the tension between these positions that, to a large degree, makes the selection of resources to use a meaningful decision.  Obviously, there are other factors, such as knowledge of what resources will actually achieve a goal (represented in game terms by, for example, the uselessness of using a fire resource against a creature immune to fire).  There are also a number of ways in which a resource can be given an associated cost, as has been described upthread to some degree.  

But it is nonetheless true that a cost/benefit analysis is a major key to meaningful decision making, and removing the need to analyze cost/benefit greatly reduces the meaningfulness of the associated decision.

This is not a contradiction.  It is how we decide to resolve the Catch-22 that is, IMHO, the greatest source of fun in the game.



> So you also agree that in a system with conditions which have a mechanical impact upon the ability of an afflicted party to interact positively with the mechanics of the game world, then an encounter does not need to be as binary as win / lose, where "losing" for the average group means "death", as you have implied in the past?




While in the current and past D&D paradigms (and I expect 4e as well), death has been by far the most commonly used "lose" condition by the average DM, I have already agreed many, many, many times that other "lose" conditions exist.

However, death is the obvious route for DMs to impose lose conditions.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> If the obvious route leads to an unplayable character, that means the rules need work.




Likewise, if the obvious route leads to a 15-minute adventuring day, that means the rules need work.

RC


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Likewise, if the obvious route leads to a 15-minute adventuring day, that means the rules need work.




See, Pemerton? He's just a tease.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> JK, your formatting is screwed up, making it difficult to answer.



My appologies.



> It does.  "If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used" is, AFAICT, a pretty universal statement.
> 
> If that logic did not apply to per-encounter resources, then the switch to per-encounter resources would solve the problem, as Wyatt suggests.
> 
> ...
> 
> No, I would be an idiot for using a per-encounter resource if I had a more powerful per-day one, _there is no cost to using it_.  Likewise, I would be an idiot to use a resource if it had a high associated cost _and I could accomplish my goal without using it_.
> 
> It is the tension between these positions that, to a large degree, makes the selection of resources to use a meaningful decision.  Obviously, there are other factors, such as knowledge of what resources will actually achieve a goal (represented in game terms by, for example, the uselessness of using a fire resource against a creature immune to fire).  There are also a number of ways in which a resource can be given an associated cost, as has been described upthread to some degree.
> 
> But it is nonetheless true that a cost/benefit analysis is a major key to meaningful decision making, and removing the need to analyze cost/benefit greatly reduces the meaningfulness of the associated decision.
> 
> This is not a contradiction.  It is how we decide to resolve the Catch-22 that is, IMHO, the greatest source of fun in the game.



And you still have yet to demonstrate that there is no cost to spend your more powerful per-day abilities. Indeed, from a game-mechanics point of view, if you argued that a resource which you could regain by resting for eight hours had no cost, since they can be reset so easily, then per-encounter resources must have even less of a cost, since they are reset even more easily. And if you enter an encounter unsure of the difficulty and then proceed to rely solely upon your most powerful, most limited in supply abilities, you're skipping the entire decision-making process which you also profess to the "greatest source of fun in the game".




> While in the current and past D&D paradigms (and I expect 4e as well), death has been by far the most commonly used "lose" condition by the average DM, I have already agreed many, many, many times that other "lose" conditions exist.
> 
> However, death is the obvious route for DMs to impose lose conditions.



But you have argued that from a mechanical point of view, the particular per-encounter system proposed by 4e encourages an all-or-nothing win / lose (die). But if there are conditions which can negatively impact upon a character's mechanical performance in subsequent challenges, then _it isn't as binary as you claim on the mechanical side_. The characters can indeed be victorious but suffer attrition. And considering that we've seen a condition chart in Star Wars: Saga Edition _and_ the developers have been talking about "aftereffects" and "thresholds", it certainly seems likely that conditions will continue to play a part (and possibly even more of a part) in the proposed 4e system.

Hence it is likely that there will indeed be a mechanical spectrum of significant mechanical outcomes for an encounter. It's very unlikely to be as binary as you claim.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

So, do you guys think that, once my current 2 year contract for Software Engineering is over, I should apply to WotC and help them design D&D 5th edition?


----------



## Jackelope King

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> So, do you guys think that, once my current 2 year contract for Software Engineering is over, I should apply to WotC and help them design D&D 5th edition?



Only if you finally get them to include the Dancing Baby as a prestige class


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Only if you finally get them to include the Dancing Baby as a prestige class



Derwish with variant flavor?


----------



## Jackelope King

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Derwish with variant flavor?



You've got my vote!


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Pemerton therefore argues that the conclusion (it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible) is only true if there is no other mitigating factor.



My point was more that the removal is being achieved by an introduction - so the mitigation is _internal_ to the situation. In particular, the removal of the future risk (ie by introduction of per-encounter abilities) will itself give another reason not to lead with per-day abilities (because of the design of those per-encounter abilities) - assuming that those abilities are well-designed. And why wouldn't they be?



			
				hong said:
			
		

> See, Pemerton? He's just a tease.



I guess that those of us who can't do logic, reading comprehension or game design have to make do with what we can get.


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Whereas I'm only discussing one subset of mechanics/design:  Will per-encounter abilities resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem for those who experienced it in 3.X, as claimed by Wyatt's blog?




Given that I have personal experience with a system in which _all_ abilities are essentially at will, and that I find it easier to challenge players in it than in D&D; I would expect per-encounter abilities to make the DMs life easier, and not so much resolve the question of the 9:00-9:15 adventuring day as to make it an irrelevant question.

By concentrating on the specific mechanics we are trying to describe the elephant by feel - we have no idea how the mechanics integrate with the rest of the system.


----------



## IanArgent

My other complaint with primarily per-day-based resource expenditure is that you can, as aplayer, end up paying the price (holding back resources for the next fight) without gaining the benefit (being able to use it in the next fight) if the next fight comes after they have a chance to rest. Contrariwise, the pacing of the adventure suffers if the PCs used their resources prudently and the adventure still doesn't have a place for them to rest.


RC, I know you were complaining on antoher thread about the necessity for wealth-per-level. Why do you support a rule system that requires a certain # of encounters per rest period, and missing on either side unbalances the game?


----------



## Wormwood

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Given that I have personal experience with a system in which _all_ abilities are essentially at will, and that I find it easier to challenge players in it than in D&D; I would expect per-encounter abilities to make the DMs life easier




My experience with such systems has led me to just that conclusion.


----------



## Reynard

IanArgent said:
			
		

> My other complaint with primarily per-day-based resource expenditure is that you can, as aplayer, end up paying the price (holding back resources for the next fight) without gaining the benefit (being able to use it in the next fight) if the next fight comes after they have a chance to rest. Contrariwise, the pacing of the adventure suffers if the PCs used their resources prudently and the adventure still doesn't have a place for them to rest.




Assuming there is an element of exploration in a given adventure, where the PCs are uncertain as to what the day will bring and what they might face in the way of challenges, this is, IMO, perfectly acceptable.  To assume a dungeon delve, the PCs are going into a uncertain terriroty with a limited amount of information in order to explore it, knowing full well they are likley to come across dangerous obstacles.  being prudent just makes sense, given the uncertainty of the situation.  Should the PCs happen to find a secure location to hole up and rest before they need to, it is time to make a decision: press on, hoping to be able to either find another such place or return to this one, or hole up and get back to full force before moving on even if they aren't down that many resources.  The game is about such decisions, and this one in particular is the perfect kind of decision for an exploratory game.

Exploratory dungeon crawling, hex mapping and other forms of "old school" play have kind of gone by the wayside in favor or action-adventure film pacing, however, and I can see where the difference in tone and playstyle might suggest per encounter abilities would be beneficial.  But that doesn't mean per-day resources are "bad" or poor design as some have suggested, just geared toward a different sort of game.  The problem is that by eliminating or seriously downplaying per-day resources has the effect of invalidating a playstyle, where simple includinga  per-encounter resource model in addition to the per day resource model (for example, having both a Vancian Wizard and a Warlock as viable character options) would have broadened the possible playstyles of the game instead of limiting them.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Reynard said:
			
		

> Assuming there is an element of exploration in a given adventure, where the PCs are uncertain as to what the day will bring and what they might face in the way of challenges, this is, IMO, perfectly acceptable.  To assume a dungeon delve, the PCs are going into a uncertain terriroty with a limited amount of information in order to explore it, knowing full well they are likley to come across dangerous obstacles.  being prudent just makes sense, given the uncertainty of the situation.  Should the PCs happen to find a secure location to hole up and rest before they need to, it is time to make a decision: press on, hoping to be able to either find another such place or return to this one, or hole up and get back to full force before moving on even if they aren't down that many resources.  The game is about such decisions, and this one in particular is the perfect kind of decision for an exploratory game.
> 
> Exploratory dungeon crawling, hex mapping and other forms of "old school" play have kind of gone by the wayside in favor or action-adventure film pacing, however, and I can see where the difference in tone and playstyle might suggest per encounter abilities would be beneficial.  But that doesn't mean per-day resources are "bad" or poor design as some have suggested, just geared toward a different sort of game.  The problem is that by eliminating or seriously downplaying per-day resources has the effect of invalidating a playstyle, where simple includinga  per-encounter resource model in addition to the per day resource model (for example, having both a Vancian Wizard and a Warlock as viable character options) would have broadened the possible playstyles of the game instead of limiting them.



I disagree. What if I want to play a bookworm mage, not a spellcasting pacting with demons or feys to gain powers, but we don't run an exploratory campaign? My character won't work well in this scenario.

But if every class can rely - for the most time - on its per encounter or at will abilities, and only in rare cases has to spend strictly limited daily resources, you can have both play styles with any class.

From my experience, there are also other reasons to halt your dungeon exploring then being out of spells. You might need other supplies (food, arrows), or you have found so many treasure that you want to get it back to the next town. Or you have found some information you need to check with a sage in town, or just report to someone else. 

Resting just because you're out of spells has no equivalent in real life. In real life, you rest because you need sleep. In every other case, you (have to) retreat back into a safer location, to treat wounds, replenish supplies and so on.


----------



## Jackelope King

Reynard said:
			
		

> Assuming there is an element of exploration in a given adventure, where the PCs are uncertain as to what the day will bring and what they might face in the way of challenges, this is, IMO, perfectly acceptable.  To assume a dungeon delve, the PCs are going into a uncertain terriroty with a limited amount of information in order to explore it, knowing full well they are likley to come across dangerous obstacles.  being prudent just makes sense, given the uncertainty of the situation.  Should the PCs happen to find a secure location to hole up and rest before they need to, it is time to make a decision: press on, hoping to be able to either find another such place or return to this one, or hole up and get back to full force before moving on even if they aren't down that many resources.  The game is about such decisions, and this one in particular is the perfect kind of decision for an exploratory game.
> 
> Exploratory dungeon crawling, hex mapping and other forms of "old school" play have kind of gone by the wayside in favor or action-adventure film pacing, however, and I can see where the difference in tone and playstyle might suggest per encounter abilities would be beneficial.  But that doesn't mean per-day resources are "bad" or poor design as some have suggested, just geared toward a different sort of game.  The problem is that by eliminating or seriously downplaying per-day resources has the effect of invalidating a playstyle, where simple includinga  per-encounter resource model in addition to the per day resource model (for example, having both a Vancian Wizard and a Warlock as viable character options) would have broadened the possible playstyles of the game instead of limiting them.



But the problem is that D&D is meant to represent the genre presented in fantasy fiction (including High Fantasy and Swords & Sorcery). Within that genre, there are very few (if any outside of D&D fiction) where characters have to rest because they've "run out of spells". A spellcaster resting because he's tired? Sure! Resting because you're tired makes perfect sense, and so does a spellcaster's magic fatiguing him physically and emotionally (at least as it's often presented in popular fiction). But in D&D, a spellcaster who has cast every single spell in his daily alotment is just as physically capable as he was first thing in the morning before casting any spells. As I've pointed out before, D&D spellcasters don't suffer fatigue, they run out of spells, a metagame concept limited to D&D and D&D-based games and fiction.

I've always thought that the Gygaxian dungeon exporation/wilderness exploration would be better served in representing what it tries to represent not with artificial "I ran out of spells" resources, but instead with real "We ran out of food" resources, and these will still be present in 4e. As Ridcully pointed out, there are still plenty of reasons to have to turn around or ration in an exploration-type scenario, but they won't be ones which will artificially restrict other game-types to playing like that narrow niche of exploration. DMs who want to focus on this sort of exploration can do so by carefully tracking food, arrows, disposable magic items (like potions and scrolls) and other resources, while DMs who aren't as interested in it can just handwave food and carry capacity and the like to keep the game moving.


----------



## IanArgent

Reynard said:
			
		

> Assuming there is an element of exploration in a given adventure, where the PCs are uncertain as to what the day will bring and what they might face in the way of challenges, this is, IMO, perfectly acceptable.  To assume a dungeon delve, the PCs are going into a uncertain terriroty with a limited amount of information in order to explore it, knowing full well they are likley to come across dangerous obstacles.  being prudent just makes sense, given the uncertainty of the situation.  Should the PCs happen to find a secure location to hole up and rest before they need to, it is time to make a decision: press on, hoping to be able to either find another such place or return to this one, or hole up and get back to full force before moving on even if they aren't down that many resources.  The game is about such decisions, and this one in particular is the perfect kind of decision for an exploratory game.




3rd ed is explicitly balanced around the 4-encounters/adventuring day paradigm in character design. (That's not my opinion, that's the designers statements in the DMGs and other places). The problem with this is that the players do not always have enough information to make an informed decision as to whether it is appropriate to rest or not. And if they make an inappropriate decison, it's very hard on the DM to deal with. Either he has to handle the characters having more power available to them because they rested early, or not enough power available to them because they rested late. If ceratin classes were not balanced such that the vast majority of their power availability was dependent on a per-day discharge cycle, this would be a lot less fo a problem. As it is though, the current system can have such a _huge_ mismatch in available power if rest periods are incorrectly timed that it can be very hard to recover from such a mistiming.

I see a lot of thinking on this thread that the DM is "against" the players; that the game is one between the DM and the players. I don't subscribe to that philosophy. I'm telling a story with the help (and sometimes interference) of the players; just as they are telling their own stories with the help of the other players and mine (and likewise interference). I am attempting to challenge the players, true. But IMHO, fun > realism; fun > mechanics. So give us fun mechanics.

If I want realism, I'll play ASL


----------



## Reynard

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> But the problem is that D&D is meant to represent the genre presented in fantasy fiction (including High Fantasy and Swords & Sorcery).




Is it?  D&D was, and is, certainly inspired by fantasy fiction of various sorts -- not to mention other genres, as well -- but I don't think is qualifies as or is intended to be a simulation of any of those genres.  D&D is a game and therefore couldn't simulate fiction if it wanted to.  the D&D magic system for 30 years now, for example, was inspired by one particular author's work, and was chosen not because it was EGG's "favorite" but because it best suited the game.  The changes to that system with 4E aren't based upon rying to more closely simulate a different author's work; the changes are likewise based upon making the game "batter" from a certain perspective held by the game designers at apparently 75% of players.

Resource management isn't supposed to part of the genre, it is supposed to be part of the game.  Or it was, anyway.


----------



## Reynard

IanArgent said:
			
		

> I see a lot of thinking on this thread that the DM is "against" the players; that the game is one between the DM and the players. I don't subscribe to that philosophy. I'm telling a story with the help (and sometimes interference) of the players; just as they are telling their own stories with the help of the other players and mine (and likewise interference). I am attempting to challenge the players, true. But IMHO, fun > realism; fun > mechanics. So give us fun mechanics.




I am not against the players either.  i want them to "win" -- I just want them to work for it.  But I am certainly not telling a story.  We do that afterwards over a couple brews.


----------



## IanArgent

Reynard said:
			
		

> I am not against the players either.  i want them to "win" -- I just want them to work for it.  But I am certainly not telling a story.  We do that afterwards over a couple brews.





Then what are you doing?


----------



## The Little Raven

Reynard said:
			
		

> But I am certainly not telling a story.




So, you just run collections of unrelated scenes and encounters, rather than having the encounters have meaning in a larger story?

(Not trying to disparage your DM-ing style by any means, but I'm just curious as to whether that's how you run games.)


----------



## Jackelope King

Reynard said:
			
		

> Is it?  D&D was, and is, certainly inspired by fantasy fiction of various sorts -- not to mention other genres, as well -- but I don't think is qualifies as or is intended to be a simulation of any of those genres.  D&D is a game and therefore couldn't simulate fiction if it wanted to.  the D&D magic system for 30 years now, for example, was inspired by one particular author's work, and was chosen not because it was EGG's "favorite" but because it best suited the game.  The changes to that system with 4E aren't based upon rying to more closely simulate a different author's work; the changes are likewise based upon making the game "batter" from a certain perspective held by the game designers at apparently 75% of players.
> 
> Resource management isn't supposed to part of the genre, it is supposed to be part of the game.  Or it was, anyway.



So D&D _shouldn't_ attempt to emulate popular fantasy fiction _or_ support gameplay models as well as it does Gygaxian exploration?

Are there any threads that complain about "sameness for sameness' sake"? 

But in all seriousness, everything we've seen so far just seems to suggest that the game is moving away from a system which arbitrarily forces a certain number of encounters in a day to keep all the classes balanced. Resource-tracking isn't going the way of the dodo... it's just becoming a smaller part of the game in some respects and being refocused to make each individual encounter more satisfying on its own.


----------



## Jackelope King

Reynard said:
			
		

> I am not against the players either.  i want them to "win" -- I just want them to work for it.  But I am certainly not telling a story.  We do that afterwards over a couple brews.



So what connects the encounters and challenges in your game? What gives them context? Why to the characters head off to explore the dungeon in the first place?

I'm not being snarky. I honestly want to know what your approach is to creating/playing in an adventure.


----------



## pemerton

Reynard said:
			
		

> I can see where the difference in tone and playstyle might suggest per encounter abilities would be beneficial.  But that doesn't mean per-day resources are "bad" or poor design as some have suggested, just geared toward a different sort of game.  The problem is that by eliminating or seriously downplaying per-day resources has the effect of invalidating a playstyle, where simple includinga  per-encounter resource model in addition to the per day resource model (for example, having both a Vancian Wizard and a Warlock as viable character options) would have broadened the possible playstyles of the game instead of limiting them.



It's good to see a defender of old-style play recognising that per-encounter resources permit an approach to play (all PCs acting every round, intricate mix of intra-encounter decisions, etc) that pure per-day resources do not, simply because there are not enough of them to support that sort of play.

I think, however, that you are underestimating the implications of trying to build a game that includes both a (Vancian) Wizard and a Warlock. This would be, in effect, two different games - because you would need the same for warriors, for rogues, for clerics, etc. And playing with a party containing both Wizards and Warlocks would lead to all the problems (nova-ing, 15-minute day, etc) that the new design is attempting to eliminate.

I think the designers have to make a decision - a choice between two very different sorts of RPGing - and have done so.


----------



## Reynard

pemerton said:
			
		

> It's good to see a defender of old-style play recognising that per-encounter resources permit an approach to play (all PCs acting every round, intricate mix of intra-encounter decisions, etc) that pure per-day resources do not, simply because there are not enough of them to support that sort of play.




Not just permit, but enforce.  it so happens it isn't a playstyle that I am interested in, which is what makes this singular aspect of 4E a deal breaker for me.  You can be sure though that I will steal some 4e goodies from other areas for my 3rd edition 9and even earlier) games, so long as those new ideas promote the playstyle I am looking for in any particular campaign.



> I think the designers have to make a decision - a choice between two very different sorts of RPGing - and have done so.




You are probably right.  Wishful thinking more than anything else, i guess.


----------



## pemerton

Reynard said:
			
		

> Not just permit, but enforce.



Agreed.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> My appologies.




No worries.  The funny thing is that the post I wrote that in had screwed up formatting, forcing me to go back & edit it!



> And you still have yet to demonstrate that there is no cost to spend your more powerful per-day abilities.




As I have said, there are many ways to introduce cost to the use of resources.  I see no sign that WotC is going this route, and hence my concern.  If I am wrong, and there is inherent cost, then I'll be much happier.  Remember, going back to the beginning, I argued that Wyatt's claim was wrong because without addressing cost for the use of resources, you cannot resolve the 15-minute adventuring day problem.



> Indeed, from a game-mechanics point of view, if you argued that a resource which you could regain by resting for eight hours had no cost, since they can be reset so easily, then per-encounter resources must have even less of a cost, since they are reset even more easily.




Correct, just as swinging a sword has less of a cost in 3e than casting _magic missile_ in 3.x.



> And if you enter an encounter unsure of the difficulty and then proceed to rely solely upon your most powerful, most limited in supply abilities, you're skipping the entire decision-making process which you also profess to the "greatest source of fun in the game".




Which is why the 15-minute adventuring day is described as a problem, rather than as the Woo-Hoo Fun Goodtime by those who experience it.  Of course, some prefer to make one big fight using all per-day resources essentially as one giant per-encounter resource.  While I can see that this would sometimes be fun, I wouldn't care to do it all of the time, because it would be narrowing the decision-making process considerable (IMHO).



> But you have argued that from a mechanical point of view, the particular per-encounter system proposed by 4e encourages an all-or-nothing win / lose (die). But if there are conditions which can negatively impact upon a character's mechanical performance in subsequent challenges, then _it isn't as binary as you claim on the mechanical side_.




Indeed, there are game mechanics whereby the "characters can indeed be victorious but suffer attrition" -- every edition of D&D thus far has had them.  However, the fact that the designers are intentionally removing the conditions whereby characters suffered attrition in previous editions makes me a lot less hopeful as to how the new edition will play.  Moreover, if the conditions imposed by combat can be rested away, and there is no cost for resting, then it will be exactly as though the conditions were not imposed in the first place.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:
			
		

> I guess that those of us who can't do logic, reading comprehension or game design have to make do with what we can get.




And, as long as others respond to you, you will at least get something.


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> RC, I know you were complaining on antoher thread about the necessity for wealth-per-level. Why do you support a rule system that requires a certain # of encounters per rest period, and missing on either side unbalances the game?





Can you reword this question?  I am not sure what you are trying to ask me.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> 3rd ed is explicitly balanced around the 4-encounters/adventuring day paradigm in character design. (That's not my opinion, that's the designers statements in the DMGs and other places).




This is only true if each of those encounters is of a EL equal to APL.  

It also assumes that creatures are, in some ways, optimized against the party.  For example, an encounter in which the PCs have a distinct advantage is going to be a lower EL.

It also assumes combat, as creatures that the PCs can talk to might not use resources in the same way as creatures that the PCs have to fight.

It also assumes that encounters are fairly static.  If the PCs are facing a tough group of orcs, then the entire melee is set upon by dire boars (so that the orcs and PCs have to work together to survive), how the encounter affects resources can be very different from what a straight CR to EL might indicate.

It also assumes that any difficult encounter is not really a "difficult unless handled properly" encounter.  IMHO, and IME, most encounters can be approached in ways that diminish their difficulty considerably.

It also assumes that resources are not increased over the course of the adventure, because if PCs gain resources, they can use them against further encounters.


RC


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Indeed, there are game mechanics whereby the "characters can indeed be victorious but suffer attrition" -- every edition of D&D thus far has had them.




You say this like it's a positive thing.


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, as long as others respond to you, you will at least get something.




Well, that's one way to handle cognitive dissonance, I guess.



>


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is only true if each of those encounters is of a EL equal to APL.




Psst. 4 encounters/day paradigm > 4 encounters/day.


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Given that I have personal experience with a system in which _all_ abilities are essentially at will, and that I find it easier to challenge players in it than in D&D; I would expect per-encounter abilities to make the DMs life easier, and not so much resolve the question of the 9:00-9:15 adventuring day as to make it an irrelevant question.




Given that I have personal experience with 3.x, and I find it easy to avoid the 9:00-9:15 adventuring day problem, I must therefore conclude that this problem doesn't exist in 3.x?


----------



## Reynard

hong said:
			
		

> You say this like it's a positive thing.




I am more convinced every day that "hong" is not actually a person, but a self aware program that rose from snark and contrarianism on message boards.


----------



## Driddle

Merlion said:
			
		

> While many are fine with it, many people have had a problem with the "Vancian" magic system for some time, either mechanically, conceptually or both. ... (I)t's not a very good fit when compared to the workings of magic in most fantasy and mythology.




Depends on what fantasy and mythology you've been exposed to. It's a mistake to generalize "_most_" in this case.

The old/current system is still valid, and enjoyable for all the reasons initially posted at the top of this thread.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No worries.  The funny thing is that the post I wrote that in had screwed up formatting, forcing me to go back & edit it!



Curse you and your law, Murphy!



> As I have said, there are many ways to introduce cost to the use of resources.  I see no sign that WotC is going this route, and hence my concern.  If I am wrong, and there is inherent cost, then I'll be much happier.  Remember, going back to the beginning, I argued that Wyatt's claim was wrong because without addressing cost for the use of resources, you cannot resolve the 15-minute adventuring day problem.
> 
> 
> Correct, just as swinging a sword has less of a cost in 3e than casting _magic missile_ in 3.x.
> 
> 
> Which is why the 15-minute adventuring day is described as a problem, rather than as the Woo-Hoo Fun Goodtime by those who experience it.  Of course, some prefer to make one big fight using all per-day resources essentially as one giant per-encounter resource.  While I can see that this would sometimes be fun, I wouldn't care to do it all of the time, because it would be narrowing the decision-making process considerable (IMHO).




However, I still don't see how this follows. You're essentially arguing that so long as players can control how they regain resources, it follows that they'll be encouraged to nova. Remember that if you argue that the cost for resting for 8 hours is low, then the cost for resting for 1 minute is even lower, reducing the desire for a 15-minute day on one side. On the other side, you have a shallowing of nova-ripe resources. If, under the traditional system, a caster who went nova spent 50% of his resources in an encounter and decided to rest, this system might only allow such a caster to spend 20% of his resources. The wizard simply doesn't _have_ all the resources to spend on an encounter to go nova (which will also bring wizards in-line with non-casters). And recall points made earlier about the game refocusing on a single combat: if more focus is put here and on the fundamental resource of actions (as we've seen in Mearls' Iron Heroes and Saga Edition), more emphasis is put on delaying and using actions judiciously, which further confounds the nova mindset.

You are arguing, essentially, that nova-ing is the primary cause of the 15-minute adventuring day (ie it being idiotic not to spend your best resources first if the cost to regain them was only resting 8 hours, which you and players who like going nova don't consider to be a cost at all but apparently many others of us do). From what I've seen, nova-ing is being nipped in the bud here, making it a less attractive option and thus further reducing the 15-minute adventuring day.

So essentially, will there still be a segment of hard-core nova-players who will continue the tradition of the 15-minute adventuring day? Sure. But in my experience, nova-ing is far from the majority of players.



> Indeed, there are game mechanics whereby the "characters can indeed be victorious but suffer attrition" -- every edition of D&D thus far has had them.  However, the fact that the designers are intentionally removing the conditions whereby characters suffered attrition in previous editions makes me a lot less hopeful as to how the new edition will play.  Moreover, if the conditions imposed by combat can be rested away, and there is no cost for resting, then it will be exactly as though the conditions were not imposed in the first place.



The cost for resting is time, as we've already said. And the threshold at which groups rest is different from one group to another. It's a cost that groups are willing to pay when their resources drop below a certain threshold. If a group normally rests when reduced below 50% resources, and under 4e they can always mobilize 80% of their resources, there is less of an encouragement by the system to rest after 15 minutes of adventuring.

The designers are reducing one type of attrition which is not supported by the genre ("I ran out of spells") and emphasizing it elsewhere. If conditions are indeed unified as in SE under a condition chart, and if they are indeed tied to HP damage the way previews have suggested, then they'll be more widespread than usual.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> You're essentially arguing that so long as players can control how they regain resources, it follows that they'll be encouraged to nova.




No -- I am arguing that the principle that unless there is a cost to regaining resources, one does not have a motive to conserve them, coupled with the idea that it is always better to regain resources when possible, leads directly to the 15-minute adventuring day.  Therefore, a cost to regaining resources must exist to prevent the continual use-reset formula that is the 15-minute adventuring day.

The cost for resting 1 minute is only lower than the cost for resting for 8 hours if there is some distinct difference in cost between the two.



> So essentially, will there still be a segment of hard-core nova-players who will continue the tradition of the 15-minute adventuring day? Sure. But in my experience, nova-ing is far from the majority of players.




My argument is that the same groups that have this problem now are likely to have them in 4e.  I agree that we are not talking about the majority of players, and that the threshold at which groups rest is different from one group to another.  

However, the idea that "If a group normally rests when reduced below 50% resources, and under 4e they can always mobilize 80% of their resources, there is less of an encouragement by the system to rest after 15 minutes of adventuring" is true only if the average encounter doesn't dip into that extra 20% of resources.  If it does, then the threshold at which groups rest would be adjusted to avoid risking an average encounter without that 20%.

But, we shall see when the time comes, I suppose.


RC


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No -- I am arguing that the principle that unless there is a cost to regaining resources, one does not have a motive to conserve them, coupled with the idea that it is always better to regain resources when possible, leads directly to the 15-minute adventuring day.  Therefore, a cost to regaining resources must exist to prevent the continual use-reset formula that is the 15-minute adventuring day.




Do you believe that the player of a wizard with access to Meteor Swarm will demand that the party rest once he expends it, _even if_ he still has all of his Fireballs available?

I would say not. Switching to a primarily encounter-based resource managements system means, in part, that the wizard (at an appropriate level) will have access to Fireball at a per-encounter level, while his Meteor Swarm is a per-day resource. (Spells chosen for example only).

If the group does run into a situation where the party rests after only blowing off their top level of spells, there's a problem that game mechanics cannot solve.


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No -- I am arguing that the principle that unless there is a cost to regaining resources, one does not have a motive to conserve them, coupled with the idea that it is always better to regain resources when possible, leads directly to the 15-minute adventuring day.  Therefore, a cost to regaining resources must exist to prevent the continual use-reset formula that is the 15-minute adventuring day.
> 
> The cost for resting 1 minute is only lower than the cost for resting for 8 hours if there is some distinct difference in cost between the two.



I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "cost" here. To clarify, what sort of cost would you apply to resting to make it appropriate, were you facing this problem?





			
				IanArgent said:
			
		

> Do you believe that the player of a wizard with access to Meteor Swarm will demand that the party rest once he expends it, _even if_ he still has all of his Fireballs available?
> 
> I would say not. Switching to a primarily encounter-based resource managements system means, in part, that the wizard (at an appropriate level) will have access to Fireball at a per-encounter level, while his Meteor Swarm is a per-day resource. (Spells chosen for example only).
> 
> If the group does run into a situation where the party rests after only blowing off their top level of spells, there's a problem that game mechanics cannot solve.



I think the problem here is that Raven assumes that groups suffering from the 15-minute adventuring day have nova-type players. What I think Raven fails to realize is that the 15-minute adventuring day, as it is now, also plagues groups who fight their way through three or four encounters and then call it a day, even though those encounters only took 15 minutes in-game (which is admittedly an exaggeration, but I know that during more encounter-heavy adventures, it isn't uncommon to see a party camping every day by noon). These are the groups who will benefit.


----------



## Reynard

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I think the problem here is that Raven assumes that groups suffering from the 15-minute adventuring day have nova-type players. What I think Raven fails to realize is that the 15-minute adventuring day, as it is now, also plagues groups who fight their way through three or four encounters and then call it a day, even though those encounters only took 15 minutes in-game (which is admittedly an exaggeration, but I know that during more encounter-heavy adventures, it isn't uncommon to see a party camping every day by noon). These are the groups who will benefit.




This underscores oneof the elements that gives rise to the "resting at 9:15" nonesense -- the time scale in 3.x is grossly underestimated.  Even forgiving six second rounds -- which totaly fly in the face of the abstract D&D combat system, with hit points and AC and such -- there was a reason a turn was 10 minutes in 1E and 2E.  it takes a long time to figure out where you are going in an unfamilair, often dark environment.  Ever go "exploring" in an old warehouse or hospital or similar place.  It takes a long time.  You are looking at stuff.  You're being careful.  You get turned around.  Things are uncertain.  Now, throw in the fact that there is actually stuff in there that wants to kill you _*and*_ there's very likely to be valuable stuff hidden in the crannies and crevaces, and you are talking a very involved kind of exploration.  For being "back to the dungeon" -- which, don't get me wrong, I appreciate after 2E's complete failure to even mention them in the DMG -- 3E didn't thinka  whole lot about them outside of the monsters, doors and traps paradigm.

But this is the same issue that comes up again and again -- exploration does not seem to be part of the game design or the playstyle much anymore.  Of course you are going to be through 4 encounters by noon if there are only room after room of challenges broken down into 6 second increments.  Dead ends, uncrossable chasms, mazes, side passages and mini dungeons -- these were all hallmarks of D&D that have been forgotten.  Of course people fele the game has to change, because it was designed to do something different than it has been being used for.

The problem, for me anyway, is that the way it was intended is far superior an experience and far more fun a game.  Not only that, I *can* do old school in 3E, I just have to be aware of the differences in design and account for them.  The design goal of 4E, between the encounter based resources and the dungeons-as-gauntlets paradigm, seems to be putting the nail in the coffin of old school play, which might not have been the default of 3E but was certainly possible and even supported (prior to late 3.5/transition to 4E).


----------



## IanArgent

You think 6-second rounds are bad? Try GURPS 1 second rounds (also found in other SJ products such as Car Wars).

OTOH, I don't find 6 second rounds to be terribly cramped - I've both fenced and wrested in high school, so I am more than aware of how much you can do in 6 seconds...


----------



## pemerton

hong said:
			
		

> Well, that's one way to handle cognitive dissonance, I guess.



I've lost track of who is handling whose dissonance.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The cost for resting 1 minute is only lower than the cost for resting for 8 hours if there is some distinct difference in cost between the two.



This is true, but I think tautologous - the "distinct difference" in cost would be the lower cost of 1 minute compared to 8 hours.

A little more constructively: you appear (in this an many other posts) to be looking only at the in-game cost, to the PCs. The important cost to focus on is the at-table cost, to the players. Because 8 hours of rest requires retracing steps, making camp, setting a watch etc it has a signficantly greater cost to the players in game-time spent.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am arguing that the principle that unless there is a cost to regaining resources, one does not have a motive to conserve them, coupled with the idea that it is always better to regain resources when possible, leads directly to the 15-minute adventuring day.



For many playing groups, the cost of resting is the tedium it introduces into play. If the players think that if their PCs go on without resting they will not incur unacceptable risk, then their PCs will go on.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> My argument is that the same groups that have this problem now are likely to have them in 4e.



There are two reasons to think that that is not so, and that the pressures that lead to the 15-minute day will be absent:

1) With per-encounter abilities, the player of the wizard has less incentive to "go nova", because s/he can act meaninguflly every round without having to use up the vast bulk of his/her PC's resources;

2) With well-designed suites of per-encounter abilities, it will be possible to engage in mechanically interesting play which does not require use of per-day resources, and does not lead to win/lose encounters that would generate pressure for the use of those resources.​
The result of this will be that groups of players - incuding those who currently experience the 15-minute day - will be able to enjoy meaningful encounters without using their per-day resources (and thus without feeling any need to rest) and will be able to proceed even once their per-day resources have been consumed and still be confident that they are capable of engaging in mechanically interesting encounters, without incurring unacceptable risks to their PCs. Contributing to this willingness to go on will be a desire, by many groups, to avoid the tedium that resting induces _for the players, at the table_.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> the idea that "If a group normally rests when reduced below 50% resources, and under 4e they can always mobilize 80% of their resources, there is less of an encouragement by the system to rest after 15 minutes of adventuring" is true only if the average encounter doesn't dip into that extra 20% of resources.  If it does, then the threshold at which groups rest would be adjusted to avoid risking an average encounter without that 20%.



That is true. See (2) above for a brief explanation of why there is no reason to think that the average (typical) encounter should do so. (I should add that (2) depends entirely on drawing the distinction I made earlier between "challenging for the players" and "challenging for the PCs".)



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> But, we shall see when the time comes, I suppose.



Undoubtedly. The key question is whether per-encounter abilities are designed so as to ensure that (2) above is true, and that players can avoid the tedium of resting without (a)exposing their PCs to unacceptable risk, and (b) being stuck with only mechanically uninteresting encounters. I think that this is what James Wyatt has in mind when talking about well-designed suites of powers.


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> Do you believe that the player of a wizard with access to Meteor Swarm will demand that the party rest once he expends it, _even if_ he still has all of his Fireballs available?




If the average encounter is one in which he needs Meteor Swarm?  Absolutely.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "cost" here. To clarify, what sort of cost would you apply to resting to make it appropriate, were you facing this problem?




We've already discussed a number of types of "cost" for resting.  You can use story costs (ex., "At noon the X will kill the Y, so we can't rest now", or the poison gas in Secret Shrine of Tomachan [sp?] that kills you if you don't escape the dungeon in X hours).  However, constant use of story costs strikes some (including myself) as heavy-handed.  You can use mechanical costs (resting more than X times in Y space of time has mechanical disadvantage Z).  You can use verisimilitude costs (characters simply are not tired/wandering monsters may come).

I'm sure there are many, many more examples of costs that can be used.



> I think the problem here is that Raven assumes that groups suffering from the 15-minute adventuring day have nova-type players. What I think Raven fails to realize is that the 15-minute adventuring day, as it is now, also plagues groups who fight their way through three or four encounters and then call it a day, even though those encounters only took 15 minutes in-game (which is admittedly an exaggeration, but I know that during more encounter-heavy adventures, it isn't uncommon to see a party camping every day by noon). These are the groups who will benefit.




For reasons outlined already I believe that the structure thus far revealed for 4e is going to encourage nova-ing more than 3.X does.  Having to rest after 3-4 encounters is not, IMHO, greatly different than having to rest after one.

If you follow the CR/EL guidelines, you should certainly be able to have more than 3-4 encounters, because not every encounter will be of APL or over.  I myself am capable of running a game with far more than 3-4 encounters, using unmodified 3.0 or 3.5, that is fun and challenging to my players.  Yet, it seems common (and the Interweb may exaggerate how common it is!) that many groups cannot do so.

Why?

Because they eschew the lower-than-APL encounters for the "exciting" APL or higher encounters.  This uses up resources quickly.  It is, in fact, a "slow nova" effect.

APL or higher encounters are only more exciting than other encounters if your main determinant of excitement in these encounters is the mechanical one.  Otherwise, you can easily have dozens of exciting encounters each day using other thesholds of significance.

If you are only exciting by encounters in 3.x that reach a certain mechanical theshold of significance, what are the odds that you are going to be exciting for long by encounters 4e that fail to reach even that mechanical theshold of significance?

To make encounters exciting for these groups, it will not take long for them to need to use Meteor Swarm, even though they could use Fireball in every encounter.  Rather than 3-4 encounters before resting, they'll be going 1-2 encounters.  And, if combat is streamlined, that will take a lot less game time (we can only hope).

(NOTE:  We are already hearing complaints that fighting mooks in the SW: SAGA system is too easy.)

Hence, I don't believe that these groups will benefit in the long term.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> We've already discussed a number of types of "cost" for resting.  You can use story costs (ex., "At noon the X will kill the Y, so we can't rest now", or the poison gas in Secret Shrine of Tomachan [sp?] that kills you if you don't escape the dungeon in X hours).  However, constant use of story costs strikes some (including myself) as heavy-handed.  You can use mechanical costs (resting more than X times in Y space of time has mechanical disadvantage Z).  You can use verisimilitude costs (characters simply are not tired/wandering monsters may come).
> 
> I'm sure there are many, many more examples of costs that can be used.
> 
> 
> 
> For reasons outlined already I believe that the structure thus far revealed for 4e is going to encourage nova-ing more than 3.X does.  Having to rest after 3-4 encounters is not, IMHO, greatly different than having to rest after one.



That's the point where I (quite often now  ) disagree with you. Novaing in 3rd edition is _very_ powerful. The difference between the power you require to succeed and the power you can expend to succeed (quickly and deciesive) is big. (in an average encounter, you can expend up to 4 times as much power as expected!)

The range in 4th edition is lower. You can only get 20 % more "oomph" when novaing. The benefits are lower when novaing, and, more importantly, it's also no longer as important as it used to be. The most difficult encounter you can reasonaly engage in can't require you to take more than these extra 20 %. It can't increase its difficulty by 300 %. 

If the range is lower, it probably also means that people will have a harder time figuring out if the current encounter requires to expend daily resources or not. Some might waste them to often (and run into the short adventuring day problem), but I suspect most will wait to expend them. (I base that on my experience that most spellcasters don't like to risk high level resources. If your experience differs, this assumption might be wrong. At least for the groups you have experience with). I also think that this makes good tactics and team work more important, because sometimes, they can give you the 20 % extra, instead of your Meteor Swarm...



> If you follow the CR/EL guidelines, you should certainly be able to have more than 3-4 encounters, because not every encounter will be of APL or over.  I myself am capable of running a game with far more than 3-4 encounters, using unmodified 3.0 or 3.5, that is fun and challenging to my players.  Yet, it seems common (and the Interweb may exaggerate how common it is!) that many groups cannot do so.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they eschew the lower-than-APL encounters for the "exciting" APL or higher encounters.  This uses up resources quickly.  It is, in fact, a "slow nova" effect.



Your reasoning might be quite correct here, and it is in my experience simply because lower than APL encounters don't offer risks (unless the opponents happens to have Save or Die spells). If there is at least two characters in the group that don't rely on magic and are competent in either ranged or melee combat (basically anyone with a BAB of a Rogue), they can deal with it without the help of the real casters. And in my experience, that is not satisfying for the casters (especially those that don't rely on spell). But if they decide to intervene, they not only waste resources, they probably eliminate the fun the others had beating down the mooks attacking them.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That's the point where I (quite often now  ) disagree with you.




And you may be right.  As I've said many times, I'd be happy to be wrong.



> If the range is lower, it probably also means that people will have a harder time figuring out if the current encounter requires to expend daily resources or not. Some might waste them to often (and run into the short adventuring day problem), but I suspect most will wait to expend them.




I think that, if have a harder time figuring out if the current encounter requires to expend daily resources or not, and there is no reason not to, they will choose to use them more often than not.  Better safe than sorry.



> Your reasoning might be quite correct here, and it is in my experience simply because lower than APL encounters don't offer risks (unless the opponents happens to have Save or Die spells).




In a paradigm with a lot of smaller encounters, and a few big ones, minor resource attrition can become important.  As a result, the focus changes to trying to find ways to tilt the odds in your favor.  Rather than simply wade in and fight the ogre, for example, the characters use ranged weapons and mobility.  

I ran an encounter in 3e with a horde of goblins vs. 4th level PCs, where the PCs used the terrain to their advantage to prevail with minimum loss.  It was important to them to minimize loss, because anything lost now would be gone until they could rest, and they could not be certain how many encounters they might have before they could rest.

No loss has meaning without a context that gives that loss meaning.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> We've already discussed a number of types of "cost" for resting.  You can use story costs (ex., "At noon the X will kill the Y, so we can't rest now", or the poison gas in Secret Shrine of Tomachan [sp?] that kills you if you don't escape the dungeon in X hours).  However, constant use of story costs strikes some (including myself) as heavy-handed.  You can use mechanical costs (resting more than X times in Y space of time has mechanical disadvantage Z).  You can use verisimilitude costs (characters simply are not tired/wandering monsters may come).
> 
> I'm sure there are many, many more examples of costs that can be used.



Time is a mechanical resource. You seem to be the only person who argues that it isn't.



> For reasons outlined already I believe that the structure thus far revealed for 4e is going to encourage nova-ing more than 3.X does.  Having to rest after 3-4 encounters is not, IMHO, greatly different than having to rest after one.



Raven, it's pretty clear that you're not familiar with nova-ing.

A nova character is designed to do something like this:

*Swift Action* – _Extended Temporal Acceleration_ (augmented to 3 rounds)
*Temporal Acceleration Round 1 Standard Action* - _Greater Metamorphosis_ (Choker)
*Temporal Acceleration Rounds 2 to 6: Standard Action* – _Delay Energy Ball_
*Choker Action* – _Delay Energy Ball_
*Move Action* – _Refocus_
*Swift Action* – _Hustle_
*Hustle Action* – _Refocus_
*Normal Time Standard Action* – _Empowered Energy Ball_

Which would cost 283 pp (at manifester level 17 for a psion, this is pretty much their whole day's worth of resources) and deal an average of 931.5 damage. The idea is to draw resources which should, presumably, be alloted to a later encounter in the day to maximize the effect (usually damage) that a nova can do in the shortest amount of time. Rather than throw out one effect in a round, or use only 25% of your resources in an encounter, a nova attempts to use as many resources as possible in the space of one round.

Now, as Ridcully has already pointed out, if you simply can't draw upon more than 20% of your "normal" resources in any given encounter, then your "nova" is more like a "firecracker". This character is drawing about 16x what he could normally draw upon in a single round.

Now, just to make sure this is clear, _if you don't have the resources to draw upon to fuel your nova, then you cannot go nova_. Can't. Cannot. Your nova won't be a bang, but a whimper at best

Since there is no longer as great of a benefit to novaing under the new system (since it's hard to draw upon resources from later encounters when you're not assigned them in the first place), novaing becomes a much weaker option, and _yet another_ point where the system encourages the 9-9:15 resting day goes away.



> APL or higher encounters are only more exciting than other encounters if your main determinant of excitement in these encounters is the mechanical one.  Otherwise, you can easily have dozens of exciting encounters each day using other thesholds of significance.
> 
> If you are only exciting by encounters in 3.x that reach a certain mechanical theshold of significance, what are the odds that you are going to be exciting for long by encounters 4e that fail to reach even that mechanical theshold of significance?



You've already agreed that there are other *mechanical* thresholds of significance, including conditions. We've agreed that they fulfill both of our definitions of mechanical thresholds of significance. You're backtracking and accomplishing nothing.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Time is a mechanical resource. You seem to be the only person who argues that it isn't.




Time is only a resource where the passage of time means something.  



> Raven, it's pretty clear that you're not familiar with nova-ing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The idea is to draw resources which should, presumably, be alloted to a later encounter in the day to maximize the effect (usually damage) that a nova can do in the shortest amount of time. Rather than throw out one effect in a round, or use only 25% of your resources in an encounter, a nova attempts to use as many resources as possible in the space of one round.




When we discuss the 15-minute adventuring day problem, I assume that we can agree that it is caused (in part) by expenditure of resources that the players deem important faster than verisimilitude allows for.  It doesn't necessarily have to be spent in 15 minutes, nor does it necessarily have to be spent in 1 round.  It just has to be spent more quickly than is desireable, followed by the PCs resting to recover it.

I am assuming that you are not arguing that using up your resources in 2 rounds isn't a problem, or using up your resources in 4 rounds.  It is more than possible to have 4 encounters within 15 game-time minutes.  Hence my statement that "Having to rest after 3-4 encounters is not, IMHO, greatly different than having to rest after one."

You seem hung up on both the time frame (1 round or 1 encounter followed by a rest is a problem; 4 rounds or 4 encounters is not) and the effect that causes the rest.  The specifics of the time frame, and the specifics of the effect, are not IMHO important.



> Now, as Ridcully has already pointed out, if you simply can't draw upon more than 20% of your "normal" resources in any given encounter, then your "nova" is more like a "firecracker". This character is drawing about 16x what he could normally draw upon in a single round.
> 
> Now, just to make sure this is clear, _if you don't have the resources to draw upon to fuel your nova, then you cannot go nova_. Can't. Cannot. Your nova won't be a bang, but a whimper at best




So, if I understand correctly, if I need 90% of my resources for an average encounter, and I have only used up 20% of my resources, because this is not going nova, I will not rest?     

IMHO, it doesn't matter whether your resources get used up in a bang, a whimper, or a series of whimpers.  What matters is whether or not you have no reason to conserve them.

Get past the idea that using your resources in 1 round (or even 1 encounter) is the sum total of the problem, and you'll be better able to respond to the argument I am making (rather than the one you are "hearing").

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

I see where I'm being unclear.

The issue isn't one round of nova-ing or whatnot, as you correctly point out. This issue should be endeavoring to solve the problem of groups who have 4 nice, average encounters but still have to call it a day before noon simply because they're out of resources.

The issue is that in the proposed 4e system, there simply isn't a way to draw from resources which should be used in other encounters to the extent which you can under 3e. Your bag of tricks is only one encounter deep, with a little bit of padding from your few "per-day" resources. Since you have fewer encounters worth of resources to draw upon, nova-ing is less spectacular, and thus less desirable / attractive. You can't go screaming along at four times your normal power by trying to use the resources you were expected by the designers to be saving for encounters 2, 3, and 4 later in the day: at best, you can give yourself a 20% boost by blowing through your tiny handful of per-day abilities.

Nova-ing becomes less attractive and less effective, and thus becomes less of a driving force for characters to rest so often.

Further, if what groups perceive to be essential abilities remain available in every encounter (their meat-and-potatoes), resting will be less needed to recover these abilities which groups feel as though they cannot continue without. If that group's threshold includes anything below 100% full resources as unacceptable to continuing adventuring, then no, 4e's proposed system will not benefit them. If the group's normal threshold is anywhere below 80%, then yes, it will.

And to add to that the fact that no one group will be a resource-outlier, needing to rest more often than the rest of the group due to mechanics, but rather only personal playstyle or the demands of a given day (for example, if a cleric's per-day abilities included his resurrection spells, I could certainly see the cleric asking to rest after the first encounter because the dragon's breath critted the fighter and the rogue and he needed to expend most of his per-day resurrection spells right away). The whole group will be following a similar power progression curve over the course of a day and will not only be better balanced with one another, but they will probably all be following a similar course from encounter to bed, so to speak, needing to rest at a similar time.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I see where I'm being unclear.




Then you're wiser than me on most days.  I just scratch my head and wonder where I dropped the ball.....   



> Your bag of tricks is only one encounter deep, with a little bit of padding from your few "per-day" resources.




If this is the case, then the questions become:

(1)  How often is it worth your while to draw on that padding?
(2)  How often is it necessary to draw on that padding? and
(3)  What is the cost of drawing on that padding?

Can we agree that those are the questions WotC has to consider to make this idea work?  They are certainly the questions I considered when I moved to a mixed system homebrewed from 3.X.  Finding the balance between those factors is, IMHO, a "holy grail" of game design.

RC


----------



## Jackelope King

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Then you're wiser than me on most days.  I just scratch my head and wonder where I dropped the ball.....



Yeah, that happens to me too pretty often.


> If this is the case, then the questions become:
> 
> (1)  How often is it worth your while to draw on that padding?
> (2)  How often is it necessary to draw on that padding? and
> (3)  What is the cost of drawing on that padding?
> 
> Can we agree that those are the questions WotC has to consider to make this idea work?  They are certainly the questions I considered when I moved to a mixed system homebrewed from 3.X.  Finding the balance between those factors is, IMHO, a "holy grail" of game design.
> 
> RC



These are indeed important questions to consider. Another important one is "What will that padding include?" In my experience, extremely limited abilities (1/week or whatnot) are usually utility in nature, like being able to resurrect someone with no penalty or cure a disease (spirit shaman and paladin, respectively). I wouldn't be surprised if many per-day abilities followed a similar model.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

The other issue that I see in RC's arguments against what we know from Wizards re: at-will / per-encounter / per-day resources is a pretty fundamental assumption he seems to be making.

Succinctly, that your resources will end up looking like:

At-Will: Magic Missile
Per-Encounter: Fireball
Per-Day: Meteor Swarm

... or, more generalized:

At-Will: Weak Attack
Per-Encounter: Strong Attack
Per-Day: Devastating Attack

Accordingly, expending your per-day resources may have a meaningful impact on your ability to fight your next fight.

Do the issues you bring up continue to apply if the resources look more like:

At-Will: Weak Attack
Per-Encounter: Strong Attack
Per-Day: Knock / Phantom Steed / Spider Climb / Etc.?


----------



## pemerton

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The other issue that I see in RC's arguments against what we know from Wizards re: at-will / per-encounter / per-day resources is a pretty fundamental assumption he seems to be making.
> 
> Succinctly, that your resources will end up looking like:
> 
> At-Will: Magic Missile
> Per-Encounter: Fireball
> Per-Day: Meteor Swarm
> 
> ... or, more generalized:
> 
> At-Will: Weak Attack
> Per-Encounter: Strong Attack
> Per-Day: Devastating Attack
> 
> Accordingly, expending your per-day resources may have a meaningful impact on your ability to fight your next fight.
> 
> Do the issues you bring up continue to apply if the resources look more like:
> 
> At-Will: Weak Attack
> Per-Encounter: Strong Attack
> Per-Day: Knock / Phantom Steed / Spider Climb / Etc.?



Treating your question as rhetorical, I agree, and have been suggesting since about post #1000 that this is the sort of consideration that Wyatt has in mind when he refers to "sound power design". For example (at post #1075):



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm mostly interested in your opinion of the example I sketched in my post. The point of that example was to try to indicate how per-day resources can both be useful, but not necessarily the most rational first response to an encounter. For example, a "second wind" ability is very useful, but one would not use it at the start of an encounter, because one would still be at or near full hit points at that point. Likewise, a "teleport the party" or "heal all allies" ability is not one with which one would open.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have tried to give examples in which per-encounter and per-day resources are both available, and even though the encounter is challenging it is not rational to lead with one's per-day resources. The examples depend on the details (both in consequence, and activation cost) of the resources in question.
> 
> You continue to assert, at a purely general level, "In a dangerous situation rational players will always lead with their characters' most powerful (ie typically per-day) abilities" without considering, in detail, for particular suites of abilities, whether this is likely to be true or not.



RC's response was to suggest that a 1x/day "pick your nose" ability was not very exciting. I don't regard that as a very illuminating response.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> If there is at least two characters in the group that don't rely on magic and are competent in either ranged or melee combat (basically anyone with a BAB of a Rogue), they can deal with it without the help of the real casters. And in my experience, that is not satisfying for the casters (especially those that don't rely on spell). But if they decide to intervene, they not only waste resources, they probably eliminate the fun the others had beating down the mooks attacking them.



This is a good point, which I think explains that the unsatisfactoriness of mook-encounters in 3E is in part a function of the way caster abilities currently work. It reinforces the point that the current design is an obstacle to certain sorts of play, and also suggests that designing suites of powers that produce mechanically interesting encounters for all classes, without necessitating the use of per-day resources, may not be as challenging as it seems at first.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> These are indeed important questions to consider. Another important one is "What will that padding include?" In my experience, extremely limited abilities (1/week or whatnot) are usually utility in nature, like being able to resurrect someone with no penalty or cure a disease (spirit shaman and paladin, respectively). I wouldn't be surprised if many per-day abilities followed a similar model.




In one of the playtest blogs, something is mentioned specifically as a per-day ability, and it is a strong combat ability.  If most of these resources are not strong combat abilities, I doubt they would mention it specifically as an example of a per-day ability.....but I could obviously be wrong about that.

My first post on this thread was kudos for Mustrum_Ridcully's theoretical design, and to express that, from the design blogs, I think that his design was superior to what 4e is going to deliver.  So, to answer Patryn of Elvenshae's question, I will readily agree that any per-day ability that has no relevance to most encounters in the game need not be considered in terms of the 15-minute adventuring day problem.....whether my stalker finds that response illuminating or not!   

EDIT:  The one mention of a per-day ability that I am aware of is "my once-per-day scorch, a powerful fire attack" (mentioned here).


----------



## hong

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> ...whether my stalker finds that response illuminating or not!





... wait a minute, how do you know who's stalking who?


----------



## shilsen

Check it out. Someone's replicated this thread over here. Except that one's funnier.


----------



## Raven Crowking

It's taken a bit, but we've got another mention of a per-day abilities here:  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=211380

Apparently, one does "impressive damage" while another is "powerful" ("hit hard and fast with a powerful daily ability that gave allies a bonus to hit the target").  Another daily power "make one of the giants play whack-a-mole with an ally".

It seems to me that daily powers will be considerable in comparison to per-encounter powers, on the basis of what limited information we have.  Which seems counter to the hopes of some that daily abilities won't be the "big guns".

RC


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> ...



 Stop molesting dead equines, RC. Go towards the light.


----------



## med stud

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It's taken a bit, but we've got another mention of a per-day abilities here:  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=211380
> 
> Apparently, one does "impressive damage" while another is "powerful" ("hit hard and fast with a powerful daily ability that gave allies a bonus to hit the target").  Another daily power "make one of the giants play whack-a-mole with an ally".
> 
> It seems to me that daily powers will be considerable in comparison to per-encounter powers, on the basis of what limited information we have.  Which seems counter to the hopes of some that daily abilities won't be the "big guns".
> 
> RC




OTOH they also seem to be fairly conditional. The "impressive damage" one might be a good opening move but then again maybe it won't; you open with obscene damage, the damage get healed, you blew your most powerful weapon and got nothing for it. It might be better to save your "impressive damage" for when you think it will one-shot the opponent. You see, a simple "impressive damage" power contains loads of possibilities for optimal use.

The "hit hard and fast with a powerful daily ability that gave allies a bonus to hit the target" is also only useful if you have allies that have positioned themselves in a way that means that they can attack optimally. You also have to make a trade off in if there are enough people close by or if there ever will be enough people close by. Again, you don't just use this ability at the start of the combat without putting thought into it.

"make one of the giants play whack-a-mole with an ally" sounds like it might be very useful in some circumstances and less useful in others. In the best case scenario you use it to take one round away from a powerful opponent and kill another opponent in one use of this power. In another situation you use it to deal 2d8+17 damage.

All of the above abilities are not of the auto fire variety that it's always best to open a combat with. They may even be suboptimal to per encounter abilities in certain circumstances. 

I really think that I am right in this considering that this is more or less basic game design since Starcraft from 1997. The most expensive choice is not always the best choice for any situation. If computer game design have worked on this principle since about then I'd be surprised if RPG- designers didn't do it now.


----------



## Raven Crowking

med stud said:
			
		

> OTOH they also seem to be fairly conditional. The "impressive damage" one might be a good opening move but then again maybe it won't; you open with obscene damage, the damage get healed, you blew your most powerful weapon and got nothing for it. It might be better to save your "impressive damage" for when you think it will one-shot the opponent. You see, a simple "impressive damage" power contains loads of possibilities for optimal use.




We're seeing different things in these posts, to be sure.

I see "Fight, rest, fight, rest" and a mention that the daily powers are always the big guns.  In the werewolf fight, we note, the PCs pulled out the big guns right away.  "Fight, rest" isn't a problem when the rest is 15 minutes or so.  In fact, I would consider that a good thing.  However, there does seem to be a lot of "That was an exciting fight, almost got killed!" in the playtest reports, IMHO, and after a couple of encounters the PCs in the quoted report wonder if they should continue.

Rather what I predicted.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> Stop molesting dead equines, RC. Go towards the light.




No one's forcing you to pay attention to this thread, Shilsen.

RC


----------



## med stud

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> We're seeing different things in these posts, to be sure.
> 
> I see "Fight, rest, fight, rest" and a mention that the daily powers are always the big guns.  In the werewolf fight, we note, the PCs pulled out the big guns right away.  "Fight, rest" isn't a problem when the rest is 15 minutes or so.  In fact, I would consider that a good thing.  However, there does seem to be a lot of "That was an exciting fight, almost got killed!" in the playtest reports, IMHO, and after a couple of encounters the PCs in the quoted report wonder if they should continue.
> 
> Rather what I predicted.
> 
> RC




It might be that certain combats are best started with the most powerful things you got and other combats it's not. The werewolf combat in that case was started with the big guns. My theory in the quoted post also builds on players always using optimal tactics instead of role played tactics (for example a PC with Int 6 and deficient impulse control).



> "Fight, rest" isn't a problem when the rest is 15 minutes or so.  In fact, I would consider that a good thing.  However, there does seem to be a lot of "That was an exciting fight, almost got killed!" in the playtest reports, IMHO, and after a couple of encounters the PCs in the quoted report wonder if they should continue.




If you almost get killed it's not strange that you wonder if you should continue (?). It's a playtest report so it makes sense that they make combats very challenging.


----------



## shilsen

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No one's forcing you to pay attention to this thread, Shilsen.
> 
> RC



 Yeah, right. When someone's flogging a dead horse in the middle of the road, at least some of that has got to be a craving for attention.


----------



## Celebrim

shilsen said:
			
		

> Yeah, right. When someone's flogging a dead horse in the middle of the road, at least some of that has got to be a craving for attention.




It isn't in the middle of the road.  It's at the end of a long thread.  Metaphorically 'in the middle of the road' would be starting up new threads to bring up that 'per day' powers would in fact be significant in combat.

It may not be particularly proper to say, 'I told you so.', but in a debate you can't expect people to ignore evidence that they were correct once it finally comes to light.

Lastly, I'm really getting tired of the number of posters here that regularly transform an argument about the issues, into speculative slander about the other posters mental and emotional state.  So far as I know, RC is not posting because he craves attention, and even if he was, everyone who posts anything to the boards could be condemned by the same standards.  If we didn't want some attention, we'd all lurk.  I know the moderators regularly give a pass on declaring that your opponent is somehow mentally deficient, but its still a sorry method of debate nonetheless. If you can't discuss an issue without discussing how the person who disagrees with you must have some psychological problem, then please don't discuss it.  No one is required to read this thread.

Even I think that would be cruel and unusual punishment.


----------



## Raven Crowking

shilsen said:
			
		

> Yeah, right. When someone's flogging a dead horse in the middle of the road, at least some of that has got to be a craving for attention.




By "flogging a dead horse in the middle of the road" I assume you mean your thread crapping?

It seems to me (though perhaps not to you) that, as more data arrives, we ought to be able to re-evaluate possibilities in light of that data.  This seems "normal" to me.  I would be interested in some real feedback re: this topic in light of the blog posts to date.

RC


----------



## IanArgent

I dunno about everyone else, but I've been having a stimulating conversation with RC. And I'm glad he brought up the new info; there's so much new information coming out about 4e in different places that I lose track.

And while I'm pretty sure we have enough of a difference in gaming philosophy that we aren't asking and answering the same questions; they're still reasonable questions.


----------



## Raven Crowking

IanArgent said:
			
		

> I dunno about everyone else, but I've been having a stimulating conversation with RC. And I'm glad he brought up the new info; there's so much new information coming out about 4e in different places that I lose track.
> 
> And while I'm pretty sure we have enough of a difference in gaming philosophy that we aren't asking and answering the same questions; they're still reasonable questions.





Thank you.  

It should be noted as well that what we are seeing is skewed by the playtesters reporting the big, cool powers.  I'd like to get some info as to what a minor power might be.

RC


----------



## gizmo33

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I know the moderators regularly give a pass on declaring that your opponent is somehow mentally deficient,




Not for me - I got banned for doing this (though it wasn't a supporting fact that I was using in a debate) and rightly so.   

Otherwise, the "middle of the road" metaphor suggests to me that this thread must exist somewhere on Shilsen's way to work.  Sounds like a bug in Internet Explorer.


----------



## IanArgent

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Thank you.
> 
> It should be noted as well that what we are seeing is skewed by the playtesters reporting the big, cool powers.  I'd like to get some info as to what a minor power might be.
> 
> RC




Yeah - I would love to know more about what the per-encounter and at-will abilities are.


----------

