Confusion

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Maybe, just maybe, they are actually willing to leave more things to DM interpretation then in the 3rd edition ruleset?

I am not sure how much I am in favour of this, but I know that some people (including my favourite game design hero Monte Cook himself) think that 3rd edition sometimes seemed very focused on constraining the DMs decisions and replacing them with detailed rulings.
At least to a certain point I think that's a good thing, because it avoids arbitrariness and promotes consistent play, so players know what to expect from the game world.

But it also promotes extreme rules lawyering and leads to despising DM's decisions on the spot and in fact possibly arguing against them. Which rarely helps the game, since it puts tension between the player(s) and the DM. So, leaving some terms (even if as central as "encounter") weakly defined can promote people having an easier time to accept DM decisions. Instead of hard rulings, just a few guidelines are given.
And sometimes, it also means that certain things that just seem "cool" or "interesting" of even "fair" are not allowed by the rules, and thus make the DM or the players feel uncomfortable.

Example guidelines:
1) Being in combat also means being in an encounter.
2) If nothing meaningful (thinks like talking, counting gold pieces or discussing party strategy) happens within a few minutes, the encounter is probably over.
3) Some encounters can take longer times, though, for example a complex negotiation that takes place over several days might be considered "one encounter".
5) Sometimes, encounters can be concurrent. If the encounters don't directly tie together, you might track use of abilities in the one encounter separately from the powers of the other. For example, the complex negotiation might take a few days. At one day, the party gets into an unrelated combat. Aside from the potential death of the characters, the outcome of the fight will not affect the outcome of the negotiation, so encounters already used in the negotiation are refreshed during the combat (and only for that purpose), and encounter powers spent during the combat do not affect the negotiation.
On the other hand, if the concurrent encounters are strongly tied together (the combat is only done to help the negotiation, the negotiation fails and turns into a combat or vice versa, or characters run from one combat scene to the next without any pause), encounter powers might not refresh at all.

 

[Xethreau]

It may be because I am a newbie DM, but why is defining what an "Encounter" is difficult?

 

[Kintara]

It may be because I am a newbie DM, but why is defining what an "Encounter" is difficult?

I actually think it's only difficult if you think some hedge cases are enough to cause endless bickering in your group. This may be true for some. I'm not overly worried about it, but then I also assume there will be a general recharge time instead.

 

[Campbell]

Looser rules opens the possibility of argument and hurt feelings. This reduces fun. Stricter rules (time-based, say), require more effort perhaps, but only in corner cases. Namely, those cases where arguments might arise. In which case they help prevent arguments and (compared to the alternative) enhance fun.

I disagree. Overly strict rules that attempt to cover all corner cases can bog down games, as well as negatively impacting pacing. The round by round durations of buff spells in 3e is a good example of this. Tracking that minutiae wasted time that could have been better spent on portraying action as dynamically as possible and did little to add tactical depth to the game. Additionally, in my experience at least, it did little to minimize arguments about how long affects lasted. Instead of arguing over the definition of 'encounter' everyone scrambled to remember how long it had been since the wizard casted that buff spell.

 

[HeinorNY]

Ok, but how do you explain that to the players? What's the justification other than "I say so"?

"It's balanced"
Also, the whole point here is to define what happens to "encounter" powers outside encounters, considering the little information we know. I may have missed it, but I heard nothing regarding "resting" or "recharging" or anything like that in the previews tied to encounter powers yet.

Actually, that makes perfect sense. Only, you don't get to rest in a contest. That's why it's a contest. In a sense, it's an "encounter". The Elf's advantage is that he gets to do it even once, while the others can do it not at all.

But you already assuming characters need to rest to recover powers. They don't need it in Bo9S. What if they follow BO9S concepts and say that encounter based powers are recovered at the end of the encounter. That's pretty simple and elegant. I don't need any other rational explanation, I don't care that much for things "making sense" in the game.

If encounter ends (common sense) OR characters don't make any kind of attack and aren't targeted by any enemy attack for 1 full minute, they recover their encounter based powers.

With little info we have so far, I humbly assume they will follow this simple path in 4E, and based on that I asked what to do with encounter powers outside encounters. Does the elf really need to rest 1 minute to have a better chance to hit the other fruit?

How often do your players rest in the middle of combat? What are the enemies doing during those 10 rounds? Drinking tea? I'm not trying to be facetious. You do realize that we mean "After a minute of taking a breather.", right?

And other than "in combat", who counts rounds? I don't know anyone who does.

And the simple answer to you question is "If you don't have time to rest, it's the same encounter."

I characters really need to rest 10 rounds, doing nothing, it works, but outside combat it create some silly situations, like the elf in the tournament, or even dangerous ones.

Yes, you may consider that if the characters can't rest, it's still the same encounter, but, the new enemies (using the example where the group ended an encounter but were attacked right after a couple of rounds) are going to have all their encounter power available, and the party, for the sakes of "making sense", won't. What if the characters simply can't sit down and rest for 1 minute? What if they need to keep running?
"Per encounter" abilities got to be per encounter, not per minute.
"per encounter" abilities may not "make sense" always, maybe never outside combat, but they work well when they have to, when it's important for the game, in the combat.

It seems you like the "rest" mechanic, I honestly think it's ok, too much needless rationalization to my taste though, but nothing yet showed me WotC likes it too.

 

[HeinorNY]

It sounds to me kind of like determining when you can take 10 or not.

I like that. If you could take a 10, you can use an encounter power ouside an encounter.
Thanks, I can sleep better now

 

[Irda Ranger]

It sounds to me kind of like determining when you can take 10 or not.

You can't take 10 during combat; not even once.

 

[HeinorNY]

You can't take 10 during combat; not even once.

I think he meant outside combat, as a way to explain why character could use encounter powers outside combat at will, and in combat just once.

Outside an encounter you are not distracted nor threatened, so the elf can use Elven Accuracy in every attack.

In combat, the elf IS being threatened and distracted, so he can use Elven Accuracy only once in that encounter.

That's good enough for me, at least for the Elven Accuracy power

 

[ruemere]

Tracking encounters requires a little experience, but it's pretty easy once you accustom yourself to this idea.

Basically, whenever you end an encounter when you:
- slow down frantic pace of narration to one that allows people to talk and walk, instead of barking commands and warnings and running,
- stop tracking actions and turns,
- call for general initiative reroll due to passing of time and environment change (combat, room search, sudden ambush during search - ambush forces an initiative reroll).

Also, to take care of rules lawyers, you set an absolute encounter time limit. For example, 45 minutes for combat/strenuous physical or mental activity, 3 hours for social encouters, 8 hours for noninterrupted light activity.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. All of this is based on WoD flow of narration. Actual rules of 4E may render this advice unapplicable.

 

[Irda Ranger]

"It's balanced"

I hate that explanation. That's fine for Monopoly or some other "pure game", but I need something more for an RPG.

I don't need any other rational explanation, I don't care that much for things "making sense" in the game.

You and I are just different about that then; so I expect anything that works for you won't work for me. It's just how I'm wired that things need to "make sense." Lots of things can be "explained" with a simple "it's magic!", but this isn't one of them.

With little info we have so far, I humbly assume they will follow this simple path in 4E, and based on that I asked what to do with encounter powers outside encounters.

They've already said that Bo9S was a "preview" but that they ended up not liking how the powers regenerated. They've developed a new mechanic. I don't think we know what it is yet.

Yes, you may consider that if the characters can't rest, it's still the same encounter, but, the new enemies (using the example where the group ended an encounter but were attacked right after a couple of rounds) are going to have all their encounter power available, and the party, for the sakes of "making sense", won't. What if the characters simply can't sit down and rest for 1 minute? What if they need to keep running?

Then it's a really hard encounter. So what? Those happen sometimes. I hope the PC's thought to keep an avenue of retreat open.

This is probably a good time to read the third line in my sig. If that doesn't sound like your style, then we'll probably just disagree. I guess we'll see how 4E plays out, and which of us needs a house rule.