Why is it so important?

Raven Crowking said:

There are pages of elaboration available in this thread.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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 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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Geron Raveneye said:

Depends on how powerful those "minions" are, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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"?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

Here is an alternative rendering of your sentence:


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?

pemerton said:

<snip>

Click to expand...

Very well-said.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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".

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Jackelope King said:

Very well-said.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

* 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.

Click to expand...

* 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.

Click to expand...

* 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