Why is it so important?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Not to mention barbarian rage and stunning fist...

IanArgent said:

Not to mention barbarian rage and stunning fist...

Click to expand...

Well-spotted!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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


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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

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?

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

See above.

per-encounter cannot do what per-day does.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

But some of them have been answered badly upthread. But I won't blame you if you're done with this...

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?

Click to expand...

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.