Per day or per session?

[Mouseferatu]

I thought I hit on this pretty heavy, but it might have been over at RPGnet.

Could be. I've been avoiding most of the major un-/lightly-moderated boards, except in small doses, since the 4E announcement.

Basically, I don't mind if some characters/roles have per-encounter resources. I just don't want all of them that way... Doing so gives you less room to give the players "wow" powers that you don't want showing up all the time (whether for balance reasons or for fear of it becoming too ordinary), and the differences between different roles become more cosmetic. I really don't want my wizard to be the functional equivalent of an archer with different flavor text.

Hmm... I can kind of see what you're saying, though I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions. But I'm wondering how the fact that 4E will have a combination of "per day," "per encounter," and "at will" abilities impacts your overall conclusions? After all, wizards (for example) still have the potential for "wow" powers; one just restricts them to the "per day" category, and allows them to fall back on the others.

Edit: Side note, you slacker, Joe Browning said you brushed by our table at the Buca last week and didn't say hi!

Did I?

I'm afraid I was really out of it on Thursday evening. I didn't sleep at all Wednesday night, I had a 6:00 am flight, and I spent over two hours standing in line for a badge--most of which was spent outside, in the 85+ degree sun. It was, in a word, not a fun day, and I was barely able to stand by the time I got to dinner. :\ (In fact, I left in the middle of dinner, because I just had to get to my room and collapse.)

Sorry, though. I'd have loved to say "Hey," if I'd realized you were there.

 

[DonTadow]

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.

Nah, per session runs into a lot of problems, different people run their games at different paces, differnet hours. It's a complicated system.

What I see is DM rules for when players can rest (only at night) or when they rest they rest for a certain amount of time depending on adventuring.
And resting in a dungeon gets a penalty (no random encounter/random penalty). Living in a dungeon, sleeping onrocks, breathing putrid air has to have effects.

 

[DonTadow]

I thought I hit on this pretty heavy, but it might have been over at RPGnet.

Basically, I don't mind if some characters/roles have per-encounter resources. I just don't want all of them that way. I think having longer per-session or per-time period based abilities creates another axis to differentiate player roles and give everyone some spotlight time. A PC who can achieve a lot but only occasionally will have a different time to shine than a PC who can consistently deliver round after round, combat after combat. They will each have their own time to shine.

Moving to a strictly per-encounter based balancing models strips you of an important role-balancing tool. Doing so gives you less room to give the players "wow" powers that you don't want showing up all the time (whether for balance reasons or for fear of it becoming too ordinary), and the differences between different roles become more cosmetic. I really don't want my wizard to be the functional equivalent of an archer with different flavor text.

Edit: Side note, you slacker, Joe Browning said you brushed by our table at the Buca last week and didn't say hi!

But isn't that the problem now? Wizards are bad archers at low levels if they want to participate in the encounter. Isn't it mch cooler to have a wizard hurling energy per these encounters.

 

[Psion]

Could be. I've been avoiding most of the major un-/lightly-moderated boards, except in small doses, since the 4E announcement.

FWIW, I've found the D20 Forums over at RPGnet surprisingly civil of late.

That could change, though.

Hmm... I can kind of see what you're saying, though I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions. But I'm wondering how the fact that 4E will have a combination of "per day," "per encounter," and "at will" abilities impacts your overall conclusions? After all, wizards (for example) still have the potential for "wow" powers; one just restricts them to the "per day" category, and allows them to fall back on the others.

That sounds fine to me. As my discussion above should show, I advocate a mix of ability timing restrictions, resulting in better means to provide for role-distribution and spotlight sharing.

My original "hat of encounter based" was a reaction to those that thought that per-day (or per-time) resource management should be eliminated, and entirely replaced by encounter-based. That's what I think is a Bad Idea [TM].

 

[McBard]

At some point, there must be a definition of what an encounter is...

Well, if the 4e per encounter mechanic draws from SW Saga's Force per encounter system (or Bo9S's), then it actually refers to a 1 minute rest period to boot back up your power(s). (There are also ways in combat that you might reboot a power: feats, critical successes).

So, it's not really a definition of "an encounter", but really a description of how practically often a character will be able to use a particular power: essentially, per encounter (since most encounters runs less than a minute).

Of course, we don't know that Saga is the model, but it's not a bad guess.

Also, my preference for the three tiers of power use would be "at will", "per encounter", and "per level". If, for instance, a wizard wants to blow his per level guns in a single encounter, go ahead. You can be sure there wouldn't be a "waiting around until we go up a level" in the same way there's a "waiting around until we rest a day" in the per day mechanic.

Also, note that per encounter and per level would both be defined by, essentially, encountering challenges. The per day mechanic says nothing about what your character is actually doing. Per level limitations would require adventuring/gaining experience.

Granted, per level is a harsher limitation, and so you'd have to bump the actual number of the per day version (e.g. 3/day would have to be raised to...not sure...6/level or something). In any event, you would be able to balance the per level powers along the 13.3 encounters per level rule, freeing each play group to embrace their own pace. You know, for some groups per level means per session! For others it means per month of game play.

 

[Psion]

But isn't that the problem now? Wizards are bad archers at low levels if they want to participate in the encounter. Isn't it mch cooler to have a wizard hurling energy per these encounters.

A wizard is a bad archer at low levels, but he also has access to abilities that can tip a battle in a way an archer can't.

Not that I would be opposed to shoring up the low level wizard a bit. However, a low level wizard can be fine... better than fine, in fact... if the player is smart enough (and the DM allows them) to make good use of their scribe scrolls.

 

[Mouseferatu]

My original "hat of encounter based" was a reaction to those that thought that per-day (or per-time) resource management should be eliminated, and entirely replaced by encounter-based. That's what I think is a Bad Idea [TM].

Then I think we're mostly on the same page. While I admit, I don't think I'd have thought of the array they're using--with some spells/powers/abilities per day, some per encounter, and some at will--I think it's possibly (if done right and balanced well) the best of both worlds.

 

[(contact)]

The main problem I have with "per encounter" is that I can easily visualize a party going into Undermountain at first level, and emerging in about 6 hours of in-game time as 10th level characters. Unless the XP awards are decoupled from "encounters", and hitched to accomplishing an overall mission, then level advancement is REALLY going to fly too fast.

I think it's a given that xp awards will be changed to reflect the faster/more combat rules of 4e.

IME, rate of leveling has a stronger relationship to real-world time than other game mechanics.

 

[DonTadow]

A wizard is a bad archer at low levels, but he also has access to abilities that can tip a battle in a way an archer can't.

Not that I would be opposed to shoring up the low level wizard a bit. However, a low level wizard can be fine... better than fine, in fact... if the player is smart enough (and the DM allows them) to make good use of their scribe scrolls.

But there we go with depending on magical items again and having to play the wizard a certain way.

 

[demadog]

Thanks for all the replies. I'm sure just like everyone else I can't wait to see how the rules actually handle this new mechanic. Until then though, I'll remain skeptical that that any resource that gets replenished per day, or any in game time, will help with the combat, rest for a day, repeat syndrome. Of course, DMs can do their best to disuade these issues, but I'm hoping that new rules might help as well.

Perhaps "per session" is not the best way to go, or maybe not the best descriptor. Would "per adventure" be better? This might allow an adventure publisher or the DM themselves great latitude in defining the terms?

Another idea would be to have the characters kick butt powers have certain prerequisites, defined circumstances, or prolonged consequences. The current Cleave feat would fall into this kind of definition. The 4e desciption of the dragon combat where the dragon gets to use their breath weapon after falling below half hit points would be another. Or something like an ability "Incredibly Powerful Power Attack" which could automatically do x100 damage, but the weapon used is destroyed might be another. Is that too Final Fantasy-ish?