Encounter-based Design: The only smart elephant in the room

[Herschel]

One issue that crops up time and time again is how different groups have different-lengthed adventure days and the 15-minute adventuring day issue.

The biggest problem with the whole system is daily resources, yet many who complain about "We usually only have one combat per adventuring day and edition x doesn't fit our style very well" or "We often have 8-14 combats per adventuring day and edition x doesn't fit our playstyle very well" also insist on the very resource type that makes it impossible to have a game that fits both styles.

There's much talk about the "Nova" issue where players blow all their resources in an encounter then have nothing left for "the rest of the day".

4E took a step in the right direction with the AEDU and surges vs. HP model because the game could more easily suport multiple-length adventure days but a few classes (or a few cases where power choices fit in a narrow criteria) could still push this if they went for straight damage abilities (without extended riders) and/or did not choose their at-wills well.

Simply put, the only way to make a game that can fit all the playstyles is to have a core with no daily resources. They need to be in modules or D&DN is destined to not unify anyone.

Thoughts?

 

[nightwyrm]

Simply put, the only way to make a game that can fit all the playstyles is to have a core with no daily resources. They need to be in modules or D&DN is destined to not unify anyone.

Thoughts?

Already impossible since we know DDN will have vancian wizards.

 

[Yora]

In which case it shouldn't be very difficult to replace slots with spell points and then you have the greatest obstacle out of the way. Then it's really mostly finding a way to dial in the spell point pool for high action or low action campaigns, or add some kind of recharge mechanic.

 

[Herschel]

@ Nitewyrm Possibly, but if they modified Vancian to an alternative recharge system than just "waiting until tomorrow" to say "skim your somponents list and prep a new batch" that would be an easy enough fix.

 

[delericho]

One issue that crops up time and time again is how different groups have different-lengthed adventure days and the 15-minute adventuring day issue.

The 15 minute adventuring day is a playstyle issue. People will complain about it, but the power to fix the issue lies with them - and pretty much only with them.

Simply put, the only way to make a game that can fit all the playstyles is to have a core with no daily resources. They need to be in modules or D&DN is destined to not unify anyone.

You're not wrong, but that includes hit points. And if those aren't at least a daily resource, then you'll get a lot of people rejecting the game out of hand. In other words, unification is flat impossible.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Simply put, the only way to make a game that can fit all the playstyles is to have a core with no daily resources. They need to be in modules or D&DN is destined to not unify anyone.

Thoughts?

Pretty much what I keep saying. Unfortunately, the whole Vancian thing is so quintessential that it wouldn't be D&D without it (in the eyes of many, anyway). And the designers often seem to fall back on daily restrictions as a crutch even in other scenarios. So it doesn't seem like this will happen, but it should.

It would be nice, however, if they went the Trailblazer route, and made resting to recover spells a very malleable commodity.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Without wanting to sound too bitter or cynical or whatever:

I think the D&D Next approach can be rather simple here: If problems existed in past editions, they don't need to be fixed entirely. We can later give people modules to fix it, or we don't do it all, since we tried to fix a lot of things in 4E and guess what - we split the fanbase and annoyed a lot of people. We may have removed or fixed a lot of issues, but we brought a lot of new ones, most importantly, that people simply didn't want these things to be fixed if it took away elements that people considered "core" to the D&D experience. Even if not all did, enough did.

Taking away Vancian spellcasting and daily resources does not fit any edition of D&D. Every edition, including 4E, had it! If you take it away now, you are very likely to annoy a lot of people.

Again, it sounds overly negative or cynical, but I think D&D next is simply not the edition we will see a lot of innovation. It won't be quite a retro-clone either, and I figure some lessons from 4E will be retained, but it won't make big sweeping changes. Sacred Cows will not be slaughtered, and some may even be revived. There may be modules to slaughter them again or get back some more esoteric ones, but the core will most likely be closer to the experience of past editions, and Daily Spell Slots and the potential for novaing (realized in some play styles, never seen in others) were part of that.

The fundamental problem is of course nothing with "nostalgia" or whatever - it's simply that one person's feature is another person's bug. If your play style didn't make novaing a problem and instead daily powers was a way to facilitate operation play, e.g. clever resource management, taking that away is taking away a significant part of your enjoyment why you play. But if on the other hand your group likes to Nova, maybe because they want incredibly hard-core brutal tight battles and need every resources they can get, then novaing becomes a problem of the system - not because of the Nova, but because after the Nova the adventuring day is over. Not having daily resources doesn't satisfy the first group, having them causes problems in terms of adventure pacing for the second. You cannot make both happy. Fixing the problem of group 2 introduces a problem for group 1. So, the "core rule" should probably be, guided by that this is not any game, but D&D, that we treat daily resources and operation play as a feature we want by default and will make it into the core.

So, maybe, not having daily powers at all may make a fine module, but it's not core.

Spoiler

That's the new version of: "This would make a fine houserule, but it's not RAW"

 

[Herschel]

You're not wrong, but that includes hit points. And if those aren't at least a daily resource, then you'll get a lot of people rejecting the game out of hand. In other words, unification is flat impossible.

And it may be. The thing I was thinking about Hit Points would be that the default assumption is they simply refresh after every "rest"/"pause" to full with the two (or whatever) modules presented starting on the very same page.

 

[Minigiant]

Easy

Separate XP budgets per playstyle.

Have 4 1st levels?
400XP per fight for a 4 encounter day
150XP per fight for a 10 encounter day
2000xp per fight for a 1 encounter day

 

[Nagol]

Easy

Separate XP budgets per playstyle.

Have 4 1st levels?
400XP per fight for a 4 encounter day
150XP per fight for a 10 encounter day
2000xp per fight for a 1 encounter day

Or simply divide awards by number of daliy rests taken (starting with 1). PCs sleep overnight? All awards will be halved. Sleep 2 nights? Awards will be cut to a third.