[edition neutral] No more dailies?

[Ourph]

Maybe you could implement something similar: plot inertia. After each encounter, you might be more injured, but you have the narrative benefit of the stakes being higher, so the game lets you get away with cooler stuff.

I think this idea has possibilities. It may be too simplistic, but my initial thought is a +1 to all damage rolls in the next encounter that is cumulative as long as you don't take an extended rest. So complete encounter 1 and in encounter 2, you have +1 to damage. In encounter 3, you have +2 to damage. In encounter 4, you have +3 to damage, etc. The bonus resets to 0 during an extended rest, so you have an incentive to keep going despite running low on other resources.

 

[Garthanos]

Hmm, sort of like how PHB3 does Power Points, but with Encounters instead of At-Wills?

The only "new" thing you'd need to worry about is people blowing the Encounter power at its base, unaugmented level before realizing they ought to have augmented it, but you could solve that by allowing the power action point expenditure to ignore the power's usual per-Encounter use limitation.

Cheers, -- N

I rather like this, been thinking in terms of something like tying "dailies" to action points but hadnt quite got to the mechanistic nitty gritties. Since they are no longer dailies I thought to call them "inspired" powers. I was even thinking of having the recharge controlled well by a roll so that it wasnt so predictable.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Key #2: On those occasions when a spellcaster DID run out of spells (here is part of the key), that didn't mean the DM actually let the party rest. Oh, we could TRY to rest, but there were no guarantees. If the party couldn't find a safe place to hold up, they had to slog on until they did.

Especially early on in an adventure, unless you structure everything like a paratrooper drop behind enemy lines (which would get really boring, even for most DMs, after the first few times), it's usually going to be possible to retreat back to safety (cross back over the drawbridge at the Moathouse and go back to the inn in Hommlett and sleep for a night, etc.). At that point, if the players aren't willing to unload spells on the first worthy foe, it's because of meta-gaming and knowing that the DM is waiting to "get them" for smart play.

"Adversarial DM" is a playstyle, but it's not really one you hear championed much nowadays.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In my experience, time constraints are the rule, opportunities to rest, the exception.
I'd say there's a limit to how many times adventurers get to fully recover in a hostile environment without it getting dull (and cheesy)

Dungeons shouldn't be static. Even the PCs teleporting out would give the bad guys time to escape (no loot, no xp) or reorganize (get reinforcement, adjust their defenses...)

So yes, making the "15 minute adventuring day" the optimal choice is a playstyle issue.

I'm curious how you have a new and interesting time constraint in the 30th dungeon you run.

And the 15 minute adventuring day is explicitly coded into the rules. Rope Trick, Leomund's Tiny Hut and the rest of those spells didn't get dropped into the early editions for no reason: Players were routinely camping in dungeons to recover.

Also note how many 1E and BD&D modules had areas clearly designed as a safe refuge for the players to hole up and recover resources.

This isn't a 3Eism and, at least according to the early game designers, was an expected aspect of play.

 

[Ourph]

Also note how many 1E and BD&D modules had areas clearly designed as a safe refuge for the players to hole up and recover resources.

This isn't a 3Eism and, at least according to the early game designers, was an expected aspect of play.

To amplify this, the 1e rulebooks specifically warn players against "just one more room syndrome" on a number of occasions and Dragon magazine was full of editorials and advice articles BITD about resting/retreating when resources are depleted.

 

[MichaelSomething]

One of the advantages of having your own blog is that you already written your opinion on various subjects like this one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Especially early on in an adventure, unless you structure everything like a paratrooper drop behind enemy lines (which would get really boring, even for most DMs, after the first few times), it's usually going to be possible to retreat back to safety (cross back over the drawbridge at the Moathouse and go back to the inn in Hommlett and sleep for a night, etc.). At that point, if the players aren't willing to unload spells on the first worthy foe, it's because of meta-gaming and knowing that the DM is waiting to "get them" for smart play.

"Adversarial DM" is a playstyle, but it's not really one you hear championed much nowadays.

I agree that many times, retreat IS possible, at least technically.

However, a retreating force may still reasonably expect to face opposition, both from the forces they're seeking to disengage from (seeing the party back off, they "decide to give them something to remember them by") and forces that may have filled in the void the party created when they came in (usually in the form of the next patrol and/or the people they alerted). I guarantee you that modern commandoes retreating from a raid are still quite heavily armed and capable of putting up a nasty fight.

In addition, there may be actual reasons to avoid retreat. For instance, the campaign storyline may have a timetable built in. Or the party's own actions may have cut off easy egress.

This isn't about meta-gaming penalizing smart play or being an adversarial DM at all.

Its about playing with RW tactical and strategic concerns in mind...on BOTH sides of the screen. And RW commanders almost never commit their full resources to a battle until they absolutely have to.

In my view, it is going nova that is meta-gaming.

Now, I'm not being judgemental, nor "holier-than-thou"- I can guarantee you that most if not all gamers have engaged in some kind of meta-gaming behavior at some time or another. It happens.

However, keeping some of your power in reserve isn't meta-gaming, it is smart play based on RW military lessons.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Except that D&D isn't the real world. Special Forces don't regain all their ammunition and repair all their gear by repeating the Soldier's Creed after getting eight hours of shut-eye. It's not an accurate comparison.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Except that D&D isn't the real world. Special Forces don't regain all their ammunition and repair all their gear by repeating the Soldier's Creed after getting eight hours of shut-eye. It's not an accurate comparison.

D&D, among other things, is a combat game. There is no reason to NOT use RW tactical and stategic thinking in the game, especially considering that things like attacks of opportunity, line of sight, partial cover from interposing beings, resource management and so on and so forth are codified into the combat rules of the game.

I'm not saying you have to. D&D isn't "Army: the RPG."

But generally speaking, what works, works, and what is tactically sound in the RW is likewise good tactics in the game.

Special Forces may not replenish their gear by repeating a mantra, but I wouldn't be surprised to find a SpecOps force intending to operate in an area for a while to have stashes of gear hidden away or access to aerial (or aquatic, depending upon the environment) restocking.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Its about playing with RW tactical and strategic concerns in mind...on BOTH sides of the screen.

---snip---

However, keeping some of your power in reserve isn't meta-gaming, it is smart play based on RW military lessons.

QFT.

And the rest -- just didn't want to quote a ton of stuff, and add a whole 'QFT' or so.