Why is the Vancian system still so popular?

Or, you might say, that of some of the 4E critics, that they don't think much of our taste in literature, and the favor is returned.
I think I see what you mean (in general terms, at least).

I don't read a lot of fantasy (by fantasy RPGing standards!). I suspect I can list it all in this post: Tolkien, some REH, some Lovecraft, LeGuin's Earthsea, and (when they first came out) the original 6 volumes of Dragonlance. But that's not to say I don't have "literary" influences on my RPGing, but I think they are as much from films and comics (Claremont's X-Men especially) as from books.

I don't know how these influences factor into my gaming preferences. The thing that's always bothered me a bit about D&D in general is that combat via hit point attrition is not always that exciting. For me, at least, 4e introduces knew elements into D&D combat (movement, positioning, and other sophisticated "control" considerations) that make it not just hit point attrition - I see this as an alternative to RQ/RM-style criticals as a way of introducing excitement and dynamism.

The thing that I particularly can't get about 3E is (i) its mix of gonzo hit points with gritty skills and combat manoeuvres, and (ii) its seeming imbalance between mechanically-supported protagonism for different classes of character (and (i) and (ii) are not unrelated, I think). From my point of view, 3E is in an unhappy position between two approaches to fantasay RPGing that I can enjoy (although having played a lot of the RM/RQ side, I'm at present enjoying the other, 4e, side of the line).
 

log in or register to remove this ad


the problem with 4e

martial dailies is that they aren't MORE like the wizard spellbook, since they went that way. The spellbook would be just "fluff" explaining why one day you can cast this spell, and the other day this one, but you must pick at the start of the day, pseudo vancian style.

A fighter should have access to at least a handful of dailies and encounters at each level. And ALL the at-wills. I'm serious. Why pre-prepare a certain martial daily once we're opened up more versatility. This would have made 4e way more fun for me, and less like a 4-button videogame. (not like there's anything wrong with that, but when I want to play a videogame I can play one anytime I want, including at work where we have mandatory RPG MMO playtime one whole afternoon a week). I HATE that I can only pick one encounter of a certain level. Why? A wizard may have to witness new spells, or research them, but a fighter might pick them up by watching enemies do it, or go to town and interact with NPCs who may teach them how. The monotony of endless repetition would have been spared. Combats would not have felt the same, level after level. You would spend less time tweaking the ultimate power combos and allow a more organic, "use as you see fit", sorcerer-style approach. If you can learn it, do it. If it's an encounter power, and you used it for that level, that's it, no more from that level for this battle. Same for dailies : in the midst of a combat, you know you have one level 1 and one level 5 daily left, for a BBEG end of the dungeon battle for example, and some unexpected foes show up, meaning you're much better off picking Combo "B" (let's say a stance) with a side of fried rice than your usual Combo "A" nova.
 

The thing that I particularly can't get about 3E is (i) its mix of gonzo hit points with gritty skills and combat manoeuvres, and (ii) its seeming imbalance between mechanically-supported protagonism for different classes of character (and (i) and (ii) are not unrelated, I think). From my point of view, 3E is in an unhappy position between two approaches to fantasay RPGing that I can enjoy (although having played a lot of the RM/RQ side, I'm at present enjoying the other, 4e, side of the line).

Every edition is a reaction the one before it. The 3E you describe is, in fact, pretty darn good at handling a game with the tone of the 2E D&D novels (and related fiction), as well as the implied tone (but not the reality) of many 2E adventures. At least it is through level 15 or so--after that, I suspect 2E might have been a better option, though I didn't play enough 2E to say, and certainly not high level 2E. The suspicion is based on AD&D 1E doing a better job at higher levels, which I do have some experience with. There weren't enough changes in 2E to have broken this 1E characteristic.

One of the interesting things about 5E, if they pull it off, is that instead of merely being a reaction to 4E, it appears they are trying to be a reaction to the whole past history of the hobby--not a blind clone or copy, but a reaction, with all that implies.
 

Do you know H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth? I levelled the Tower of Mysteries up, from suitable for 7th-ish to suitable for 14th-ish.

One of the encounters in that module is a demon trapped in a circle (as I ran it, a yochlol). It can get dragged into a bigger fight, but as my group played it it didn't. It tried to bargain, but they tricked its information out of it and then killed it.
Yes, I remember that one. I suspect that same encounter is how one of our players ended up with a familiar... which turned out 7 levels later to actually be someone else's familiar... i.e. a spy!

The PCs in my game are:
Fighter
Cleric
Paladin
Sorcerer
Wizard
Yep, that says a lot to me. Aside from the multiclassing and hybrid cleric, you have what I believe to be the best party composition available:
2 defenders, 1 of everything else.

Compare that to our 1 incompetent defender and 4 strikers... big difference.

As I said, I'm not the most vicious GM in the world, but I'm not a walkover either. The players play reasonably well.

My players don't talk about encounters and dailies in character. They talk about attacking foes, stopping them, locking them down etc.

They play with a fairly high degree of tactical coordination, although the paladin and wizard in particular are known for going solo a bit. But the others - especially the player of the sorcerer - are very good at following along and capitalising on openings. In character friction tends to come out more in Marvel superhero team style - wisecracks at one another's expense, for example, or ragging on a particular tactical choice, rather than actively subverting one another's efforts.

Thanks for explaining. I can see how your group could get through that many encounters now. Perhaps then, part of the difference is that your group burns through their resources more slowly. Thus putting emphasis on resources works well for them. For us, putting emphasis on resources just shows us how screwed we are after the 3rd battle.
 

And AD&D broke my suspension of disbelief hard. 1 attack per minute? There must be something weird going on there. That one or two attack rolls were representative of an entire minute of fighting. I couldn't kill three orcs in a minute whatever I did. What was I doing? Fighting through treacle? Walking round with a portable slow zone? Whatever, the number of people I could attack was not in any way a reflection of what I was actually doing in the battle.

I completely agree with the dislike of the 1 minute melee round. I too didn't like how individual ranged attacks were individual attacks during a melee round but melee attacks were an abstract bunch of feints and retreats and wild swings and stuff. However, AD&D was also a lot more abstract in general than either 3e or 4e; I could much more easily suspend my disbelief about attacks per melee round because you couldn't do anything else but attack. If I were trying to perform any 3e combat maneuver or ToB maneuver or 4e exploit in AD&D it would really shatter my WSoD because it was a highly granular mechanic in an abstract system.

EXACTLY. He says "... because?" This to you is just fine when it's perfectly clear that the warblade has used no other maneuver and therefore it's not a fatigue issue - he has half a dozen other prepared maneuvers (or am I thinking of the swordsage? Same difference). Mysteriously, you find the "... because?" answer fine for 3.X but not for 4e. Where is the difference?

Because martial adepts don't have a hard limit on their maneuvers. Spend a round or two without using any maneuvers and you get them all back. So where the 4e fighter doesn't have a good explanation for why he can't use his maneuver again, the warblade just takes a 6-second breather (which can still include any other action besides using a maneuver, including attacks and movement) and a crusader takes a 12-second breather (same caveat) and he can re-use any maneuver he used before. As I've said before, there's a spectrum of believability from "Use X powers, each 1/day" and "Use X powers a total of X/day" one one end to "Use X powers a variable number of times per encounter" and similar towards the other end, and 4e powers are too far to the former end while ToB maneuvers are towards the more believable end.

Advice to a real life distance runner is "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Take one day of recovery for every mile raced"[/FONT]. I fail to see why actually needing rest times longer than six seconds is something you balk at on "realism" grounds. A PC is under immense stress when giving it their all in combat - it's the 3.X untiring robots, and the just peachy in six seconds warblades and swordsages that cause me problems.

3e martial adepts don't work for the fatigue explanation, they work for the "openings in combat" explanation. Any mechanic to approximate battle fatigue would look nothing like a "use some number of times per encounter, recover with actions" system, and it really shouldn't. Even if a system isn't explicitly made to emulate one sort of explanation (e.g. hit points as meat, ToB maneuvers as openings in combat), if it emulates it well enough it can suffice, though obviously building in a flavor explanation is best.

Yes. It's like players comparing notes on hit points remaining, or (in a game that has them) remaining Fate Points: "You charge, you've got the Fate Points to handle it", which has no ingame analogue ("You look really lucky today!"??).

It's a general feature of metagame mechanics. Some like this, some don't mind it, some don't like it at all.

Once again, if the fighter exploits were explicitly metagame and affected metagame things only, I wouldn't mind at all.

I'm with Neonchameleon here. A round is not something that exists in the gameworld. The turn structure and action economy of the game don't exist in the gameworld (it's not a world of stop-motion fighting).

It's true that, at the metagame level, there's a definite answer to how many attacks the fighter can make next round. But this is equally true in 4e.

It's not a purely metagame thing. Goblins can run 120 feet in 6 seconds. A 6th level barbarian with pounce can make 2 attacks on a charge and can charge 80 feet in 6 seconds. "From where you are standing now, is it possible for you to kill all four goblins before they run out of the [dungeon/canyon/etc.]?" is a question that that barbarian can answer purely with in-game knowledge: Yes, he can run and attack that fast, and if he strikes accurately enough he can down them all, because he knows he can charge that fast and he knows what he can do.
 

g to treat exploits that way, you have a massive disconnect between the fiction and the game for tactical (and conversational) purposes. Out of game, the wizard's player can talk about his various blasting spells by name and their various resource costs, and this maps to the fiction explicitly: you can say "I have one Fireball prepared today and one Shock Sphere that I can recover with a few minutes rest; I should easily be able to blanket the area with arcane energy and kill all the goblins," and that same explanation means something both IC and OOC.
The explanation is really just "because the mechanics say so" it works easily for magic, because magic is arbitrary. In fiction, heroic feats are also arbitrary, so it works fine for martial, as well, if the game is emulating fiction, rather than reality.

Since magic doesn't exist in reality, I'm not sure what else the game could be emulating.
 

If I were trying to perform any 3e combat maneuver or ToB maneuver or 4e exploit in AD&D it would really shatter my WSoD because it was a highly granular mechanic in an abstract system.

The thing is that AD&D magic isn't abstract. There has to me always been this disconnect in D&D (pre-4e) where wizards and clerics get the focus and the cool stuff.

3e martial adepts don't work for the fatigue explanation, they work for the "openings in combat" explanation.

Oh nonsense. "I'm going to automatically get exactly the opening I need for this technique if I simply attack all out for six seconds when I wouldn't if I used a Ruby Nightmare Blade - and the same opening never comes up twice in a row"? What? And that makes even less sense of Desert Wind or Setting Sun.

To me the class that worked well for "openings in combat" was the Crusader. To the point that I wanted to play a White Raven Crusader for precisely that reason.

It's not a purely metagame thing. Goblins can run 120 feet in 6 seconds. A 6th level barbarian with pounce can make 2 attacks on a charge and can charge 80 feet in 6 seconds. "From where you are standing now, is it possible for you to kill all four goblins before they run out of the [dungeon/canyon/etc.]?" is a question that that barbarian can answer purely with in-game knowledge: Yes, he can run and attack that fast, and if he strikes accurately enough he can down them all, because he knows he can charge that fast and he knows what he can do.

If he strikes accurately enough... But seriously, you've just undermined your own question due to the Attack of Opportunity Rules. What the barbarian needs to to is be able to get in position to threaten them all - if they try to run away then he's going to be attacking their backs anyway. The answer doesn't revolve round whether he has a recharged close burst 1 power, it revolves round positioning. If he has a CB1 power, he might get a second swing at them.
 


I'm fine with the concept of some or all classes selecting some or all powers - whether that's through meditation, prayer, or studying a spellbook.

I'd love a way that dodged some of the pitfalls and flaws we've seen over the last few decades,though.

1) Wildly varying resource consumption causes strong imbalances
2) If you can use all or almost all of your resources in a small number of encounters, you can nova those encounters down far outside your theoretical average
3) Theoretical averages either don't apply or vary game to game to purely daily resource classes

Ie,
A fighter and a wizard might compare if you look at 100 rounds and establish a median, but they don't if you look at 10, 5, or 200. This has often led to one dominating an encounter while another effectively sits it out. Repeatedly.

This can cause all sorts of hickups, where one encounter is trivial - perhaps even boring - because spells were used, while another is a TPK because spells weren't available. This is pretty much why the 15-minute day got coined. When your best options aren't available, you rest. If the game lets you. Of course, not being able to rest may cause friction between players and/or DM. This also results in changing the goalposts on #1, so some folks might think a class is fine, and other folks think it's BMX Bandit vs Angel Summoner all over again.

...

Personally, I'd rather that very few abilities were recovered on a "daily" basis. For example, let's say your wizard memorized his spells and got X mana points, then cast until he was down to 0, but he recovered them at some rate. And a fighter learned various stances and tricks as he leveled, but using them gave him fatigue points and he could do things without penalty up to X points. Now you can compare the two together, and have an idea of what they'll do. And why they can't do more? They're exhausted and should rest. Maybe they recover a point per round, even, so your fighter dives behind cover and drinks a healing potion for a round to get a point back, then charges into the fray, or the wizard asks his companions to hold the monsters off while he examines the room's wards for a round.

And, of course, you can customize further - they don't need to work exactly the same. I only did that to show how it could work. But let's get away from:

A fighter can do 10 damage every round all day!
A wizard can do 50 damage for 4 rounds a day and 5 damage every other round!

Which totally works if you do 36 round days and your wizard is cool with using a sling for 32 of those rounds!
 

Remove ads

Top