Here, Let Me Fix "Powers Per Day" For You

[pemerton]

Thats fine if the PCs aren't interested in the story and let the baddies leave and look for something else to loot. This isn't a system problem. Either the game is working as intended or there is a player/DM issue playstyle issue.

System can make a difference here, though.

Some systems allow relationships to be used as augments, for example. This can make it mechanically easier for the PCs to push on when the stakes get higher but also more personal (a sort of targetted Fate Point mechanic).

Conversely, because in D&D the consequences of losing (in combat, and in quite a bit of exploration also) are almost always PC death, the system can sometimes push against the idea of the PCs going hard.

I'm not going to say that this is a system problem, but I think it's something that the system designers should think about (notoriously, for example, Dragonlance brought in a non-standard PC "death" rule).

 

[SkidAce]

I, personally, have zero interest in playing a game in which wandering monsters figure prominently. They're a distraction from the real point of play.

If the party is heading into the valley of undead shadows, and I have say two encounters planned/staged, and a boss fight where they destroy the shadow producing McGuffin, I am curious about something regarding pacing.

In the above scenario I would check for random encounters maybe once an hour near the edge of the valley, say around 10%, with the % increasing as they go further in.

Do you consider this "random" encounters per this thread or is this part of the scenario?

Because in my mind...random encounter is the chance of happening...not random creatures (although my grognard old school tables do have some weird stuff on area encounter tables if you roll 00%)


.

 

[Shadeydm]

System can make a difference here, though.

Some systems allow relationships to be used as augments, for example. This can make it mechanically easier for the PCs to push on when the stakes get higher but also more personal (a sort of targetted Fate Point mechanic).

Conversely, because in D&D the consequences of losing (in combat, and in quite a bit of exploration also) are almost always PC death, the system can sometimes push against the idea of the PCs going hard.

I'm not going to say that this is a system problem, but I think it's something that the system designers should think about (notoriously, for example, Dragonlance brought in a non-standard PC "death" rule).

I'm not against an optional mechanical incentive for PCs to push on if people feel they need one. I think the trick will be making it feel like D&D.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not against an optional mechanical incentive for PCs to push on if people feel they need one. I think the trick will be making it feel like D&D.

I'm not sure if milestones in 4e tick your "feel like D&D" box or not. They're a start, but from threads I've read I think my group might be a bit unusual in finding them meaningful.

I think looking at stakes other than death for losing - so as to make losing a somewhat viable option - is also something that could be looked at. I think that looking at non-lethal stakes can also facilitate things in the exploration and social pillars (eg by making it more viable for players to engage even if they're not using their biggest numbers).

 

[Shadeydm]

I'm not sure if milestones in 4e tick your "feel like D&D" box or not. They're a start, but from threads I've read I think my group might be a bit unusual in finding them meaningful.

I think looking at stakes other than death for losing - so as to make losing a somewhat viable option - is also something that could be looked at. I think that looking at non-lethal stakes can also facilitate things in the exploration and social pillars (eg by making it more viable for players to engage even if they're not using their biggest numbers).

Well again optional rules don't have to tick my fancy because if they are not a default assumption they are easily ignored.
On a personal note I did not enjoy the idea that the functionality of my magic items were tied to the number of battles i had participated in. However (again personally) I didn't really mind action points. In fact when I ran 3.x I had a heavily house ruled action point system when they could be spend on a variety of things like adding to attack rolls or saving throws etc.

 

[pemerton]

If the party is heading into the valley of undead shadows, and I have say two encounters planned/staged, and a boss fight where they destroy the shadow producing McGuffin, I am curious about something regarding pacing.

In the above scenario I would check for random encounters maybe once an hour near the edge of the valley, say around 10%, with the % increasing as they go further in.

Do you consider this "random" encounters per this thread or is this part of the scenario?

Because in my mind...random encounter is the chance of happening...not random creatures

For me, I'd think of that as random encounters - either the episode/encounter adds something, in which case I'll put it in, or it doesn't, in which case I'll leave it out. I like to use dice for action resolution, but prefer to exercise control over scene framing.

That said, I might run situations where a "random encounter" was a consequence within a skill challenge or similar bigger envelope of action resolution - eg the PCs see some shadowy undead in the distance, try to sneak past, but fail their check(s), so the undead sense their lovely warmth and come over to try to take advantage of it . . .

But in this sort of case, I would still have thought about how the extra encounter, as a consequence of failing a check, would fit into the overall situation. And I would be factoring its outcome into decisions about subsequent developments, complications, confrontations etc. Overall, I keep my planning reasonably fluid, because I prefer to respond to what the PCs do, and what happens as a result - and find that this provides enough "randomness" or "unexpectedness" in outcomes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't see how DDN prevents any of those playstyles. I see where people might not enjoy those playstyles but that is far from not allowing or supporting. People can play that way in any edition if they enjoy doing so.

It isn't balanced under this constraints. Maybe I should have added explicitely that the play style also desires balance between characters.

 

[Shadeydm]

It isn't balanced under this constraints. Maybe I should have added explicitely that the play style also desires balance between characters.

Ok so you propose a playstyle where PCs stop and rest for the day after every fight and want that one fight to be balanced on an encounter level. Interesting playstyle for sure it sounds very much like a corner case and not the norm but I will grant that given that very specific set of conditions those people might be having more fun playing 4E. Then again I expect that DDN will have a set of options to emulate 4E style so even this corner case may in the end find thier playstyle supported.

 

[Someone]

Ok so you propose a playstyle where PCs stop and rest for the day after every fight

I don't think that's what he wants at all. If, anything, perhaps he wants a system that allows periods between rests with other than 4 equivalent combats without grossly disrupting class balance.

Really, I don't think the question of “What if my game doesn't adjust well to the standard of 4 encounters per day?” is such a preposterous question. I found after years of reading Story Hours, many of them from excellent, very talented DMs, that not that many people actually adjust to that standard, specially in more story driven games where paradoxically the penalties for delaying and such would be more severe.

 

[Shadeydm]

I don't think that's what he wants at all. If, anything, perhaps he wants a system that allows periods between rests with other than 4 equivalent combats without grossly disrupting class balance.

Really, I don't think the question of “What if my game doesn't adjust well to the standard of 4 encounters per day?” is such a preposterous question. I found after years of reading Story Hours, many of them from excellent, very talented DMs, that not that many people actually adjust to that standard, specially in more story driven games where paradoxically the penalties for delaying and such would be more severe.

So DDN has stated that 4 encounter per day is the standard?