Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)

[Psion]

Have you seen these new [Reserve] feats? Now everyone has something cool to do every round, even if they're not opening a can of Wizard Nova (tm) first thing in the morning.

Yep. I like reserve feats conceptually, though I think some specifics could use more attention.

I often find that wizards have no meaningful way to contribute to a combat, and stand around bored after that. I find that using reserve feats is good compromise. They still let the wizards live up to their design aesthetic of being the expendable heavy artillery, but not have to sit on their hands the rest of the time. It may be a pittance, but I think it has the potential to work well as a minor player-mollifier without making them fall back on the (now is where that emulation aesthetic comes up) crossbow.

 

[hong]

Yep. I like reserve feats conceptually, though I think some specifics could use more attention.

I often find that wizards have no meaningful way to contribute to a combat, and stand around bored after that.

Exactly. And once D&D is working fully on a per-encounter basis, this problem will disappear.

 

[Psion]

I'm not clear what your point is. Do you dislike per-encounter deisign, or role bluring?

I dislike the idea of across the board per-encounter design because of the likelihood that t will contribute to role-blurring.

Hmmm... As I see it, The 9 swords classes don't really hog any of these roles,

Look at the context of my response. It wasn't in response to the mere idea of per-encounter design as it appears in Bo9S, but Henry's idea that per-encounter design could become an across the board design principle.

As it is now, if a player wanted to play a class for Bo9S, with a few nips and tucks, I could see doing it. Making every class operate like Bo9S classes is another issue.

 

[Piratecat]

Don't substitute snark for content and interesting discussion, please.

 

[FireLance]

I would prefer across-the-board per-encounter design for one simple reason: it's usually a lot easier to multiply than to divide.

If I want to run a standard per day game, based on an average of four encounters per day, I can multiply all per encounter resources by four and state that they recharge on a daily basis. I can also mix it up - perhaps some classes operate on a per day basis and others on a per encounter basis, and have days where there are only three encounters to favor the per day classes, and days when there are five encounters to favor the per encounter classes in addition to days with the standard four encounters. Working from per encounter to per day in this way helps a DM to establish his own baseline assumptions, and makes it obvious why having one big fight per day generally favors psions more than fighters.

 

[pawsplay]

The problem is many people are associating Bo9S with stuff like "Street Fighter", "Fatal Fury" and other fighting games and I say this is definitely a really good route to take.

Oh, my poor heart.

 

[Razz]

Oh, my poor heart.

Hey, now, that's how I like the flavor of MY Bo9S and you have your like for the type of flavor for YOUR Bo9S. What I like about Bo9S is it's generalized enough to allow many different types of flavor. Change the names around, change the backgrounds, change the weapons, etc. and tweak the classes and ruleset around and you have your own brand of Bo9S.

(Heh, it's only a matter of time when either one of my players or myself creates a "Hadoken" or "Shoryuken" attack via Bo9S maneuvers...I've already crafted a maneuver based on Cloud Strife's 3rd set of limit breaks, the one where he swings his sword and meteors strike on the opponent)

 

[Odhanan]

I am totally supporting a per-encounter design. For the rest, I'm pretty much in 100% agreement with Hong. The man explains the thing in a much better way than I ever would, if not for pointing out once again, like he did here...

It has long been my contention that emulation is, if not an empty cup, at best half full. RPGs are a different medium from movies and novels, and we should be doing things in RPGs that are best supported by the medium.

HONG:
... you mean, like per-encounter balancing is supported by Bo9S?

... that I believe like Psion, indeed, that RPGs should come to terms with their movies/novels parenting and assume a design philosophy based on what they are instead of what they "are like". A RPG campaign is made of sessions. Sessions are made of encounters. It just makes sense to define abilities "per session" and "per encounter" to stay true to the actual practice of RPGs around the table instead of basing it on elements of the fiction (per day, per year) which may vary ENORMOUSLY from one DM to the other, and thus affect the balance tremendously.

 

[Piratecat]

Good summary, Odhanan.

My personal frustration with per-encounter balancing is that per-day balancing adds greater granularity in the variety of the play experience. By that, I mean that many players are forced to vary their tactics over the course of an adventuring day; because they quickly use (or save for an emergency) their most effective spells, they are required to handle things differently from fight to fight.

When your character is balanced on a per-encounter basis, I suspect the game gets less interesting -- at least for me. I'll know exactly what tactic works best in the first, second, and third round of combat, and that's not typically going to vary much because my resources won't fundamentally change until I level.

I'm basing this opinion on my own experience, of course. My most interesting and exciting games have been where the PCs were almost tapped out, because that heightened the tension level and the excitement. Declining resources encourages clever, creative play. I don't want to see that change.

 

[pawsplay]

... that I believe like Psion, indeed, that RPGs should come to terms with their movies/novels parenting and assume a design philosophy based on what they are instead of what they "are like". A RPG campaign is made of sessions. Sessions are made of encounters. It just makes sense to define abilities "per session" and "per encounter" to stay true to the actual practice of RPGs around the table instead of basing it on elements of the fiction (per day, per year) which may vary ENORMOUSLY from one DM to the other, and thus affect the balance tremendously.

I'd rather have an intelligible narrative of time and events than "balance."