Per day or per session?

[demadog]

It seems to me that the new at will, per encounter, per day dynamic is a little flawed, if what we heard so far it true. As I understand it the dynamic is supposed to alleviate some the combat, rest for a day, and repeat situations. However, with most if not all character classes having relatively powerful "per day" spells/maneuvers, it seems to me that instead of lessening the effect it may exacerbate it.

While it might be a bit odd, wouldn't "per gaming session" abilities be more applicable. Instead of the characters resting a day to get back their kick butt powers, the players would actually have to do the camping. Thoughts?

 

[Doug McCrae]

That's a quite brilliant idea. You're right, with any 'per day' abilities there is still an incentive to go to bed at 9.15am.

 

[Green Knight]

I don't see what the problem with "Per Encounter" could possibly be. It's great, IMO. Now your party can have one encounter, or 20 in a day, and they'd be able to kick ass in each of them.

As for "per session", that's a terrible idea. That's worse then "Per Day". You think it's bad calling it a day, ingame, cause you've used all your "Per Day" abilities? How about using up all your "Per Session" abilities early into the gaming session, and then sucking for the rest of the evening? It's one thing to have the PC call it a night, early. It's a whole other thing to make the player want to call it a night from the game, early. Nah. Per Encounter is perfect.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I believe I read a quote that said that a wizard who casts all his per day spells will be at 80% power. Anybody have a quote for that?

 

[F4NBOY]

Per session is too narrativistic for my taste, so no thanks.
I always changed them to per week or per day.

 

[MerricB]

I believe I read a quote that said that a wizard who casts all his per day spells will be at 80% power. Anybody have a quote for that?

I've read that too - or heard it. I'll try to track it down.

Hmm - might have been one of the interviews on youtube.

Cheers!

 

[Aristotle]

I like 'per day' just fine, but 'per session' wouldn't require any real retooling (as far as we can tell right now). It could certainly be presented in the sidebar for groups to consider as an alternate rule. In practice I think per day will work out as per day most of the time, and per session when I want to crank up the heat and run a session where the character's can't catch a breather.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Per session mechanics usually don't work very well unless the game is set up very differently than D&D - if then.

How does an adventure designer, or a GM, design encounters around the 'per session' mechanics? A GM *may* be able to estimate the average amount of kibbitzing and fooling around in a session, and both a GM and a designer may have a rough grasp of how long a typical encounter will take to play, but neither is likely to be a reliable indicator. At least 'per day' can be estimated for a timetable-driven adventure.

'Per session' also has the odd effect of penalizing players for a long session or one in which they focus on the game, and rewarding them for a short one or one in which they spend only a relatively small amount of time actually playing.

I'm no fan of 'per day' mechanics, but 'per session' is almost always worse.

 

[Eagle Prince]

RPGA games, like Living Greyhawk or Xendrick Expeditions, have per session abilities that you get from these cardboard cards you get in the mail for playing a bunch. Most all of the adventures only take 1 session though, so it makes it a bit easier to balance. ("wait, what if we play 8 hours straight instead of the usual 3-5').

 

[MerricB]

"Per Session" in the RPGA has a default meaning, because they know how many encounters there are in a session. Especially in Living Greyhawk, where the total EL faced is going to be capped.

Not true of other games. "Session" may mean any number of encounters.

Cheers!