Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)

[Odhanan]

When your character is balanced on a per-encounter basis, I suspect the game gets less interesting -- at least for me.

I understand the concern, and think it's true in essence. However, a "per-encounter" design would also mean a "per game session" correlation. A "per day" ability translates in my games as "per game session" in fact. This means there is still resource management per encounter in practice.

Point in case: I have a PC who died and became a ghost (as per Ghoswalk Campaign Option). I needed the PC to be able to switch between corporeal and incorporeal states since there's no "manifest ward"/gimmic to allow switches with Ptolus. I designed a magic item (bracers) that allow a switch from corp. to Incorp. OR the revers three times a day. It created some problems almost instantly, and I changed the ability to 3/game session. Since then, it's been working admirably, because the time management is based on a concrete game aspect instead of a fluctuent element of the fiction.

 

[pawsplay]

To me, dealing with those problems would be part of the game.

 

[Odhanan]

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

What do you mean with "intelligible narrative"?

 

[Nifft]

What do you mean with "intelligible narrative"?

"Railroading".

Cheers, -- N

PS:

PPS: Content (per moderator request above): Action Points and the like allow you to have a declining resource mechanic that renews every so often, as determined by story or (whatever the DM chooses). This is more flexible than forcing the daily resource management thingy into every class's initial design.

 

[Odhanan]

LOL. I'm serious though. I don't understand what pawsplay's trying to say here.

Specifically, I don't understand what one would not be able to understand (=intelligible) with "per encounter" and "per game session" design. As for the narrative, the term itself redirects towards the notion of "story", i.e. movies and novels, exactly what I think RPGs should no longer refer to (my games depict actual fictional events as they occur, they are no stories).

I'm not sure it answers pawsplay's remark, so I'd like him to elaborate, if he pleases.

 

[GreatLemur]

The milieu has no place in a conventional Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Krynn or Mystara.

Last time I checked, the Forgotten Realms still included Kara-Tur. But, aside from a lot of the fluff text, I honestly don't understand all the wailing and moaning about the wuxia flavor of the book. Mechanically, the vast majority of it seems to fit pretty nicely in your basic Generic Fantasy Setting. I mean, you can call it the "Iron Heart discipline" if you really want, but all the rules say to me is "really good with a sword".

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've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it here: Resource management can definitely be fun. But it definitely ain't fun for everybody.

So I'd say that what we have right now is a pretty decent situation: We've got classes that can do things a certain number of times a day, classes that can do things a certain number of times per encounter, and we've got classes that can just keep doing things all day. And there are plenty of characters out there with abilities balanced on multiple scales. Those who want to worry about when they pull out their big guns can play wizards, and those who don't can play warlocks.

 

[Nepenthe]

I'm not clear what your point is. Do you dislike per-encounter deisign, or role bluring? The fighter is and has always been the ultimate encounter balanced character. From the second he wakes up, till the adventure is over, is abilities are the same in every round. The Rogue is in the same boat, pretty much every other (core) class has some expendable reasources that wear down throughout the day, usually spells, but also Turn attempts, Wildshapes, and other use per day abilities.

Good point, I hadn't actually thought of that!

/N

 

[GlassJaw]

But if you institute these changes to the base of the game, then you have damaged the playability of the game AFAIAC, and it becomes more difficult for me to avoid.

Well get ready because I'm practically convinced it's coming.

I'm strongly believe that the per encounter mechanic (and the "something cool every level" article that was posted on the WotC site a while back) started as a marketing initiative rather than a design intiative.

I also believe that this is the direct result of MMO's.

- WotC knows they need to continue to gain new players.
- WotC knows they must "compete" (not necessarily in terms of dollars but certainly with respect to gameplay) with MMO's.
- WotC is aware of how people are actually playing D&D.

Players want to do something cool every round and get something cool every level.

I see the Bo9S as a nice first attempt and a glimpse at things to come, but it's far too fluff-specific to be viable as a universal system.

 

[Andor]

What do you mean with "intelligible narrative"?

It means that a game session could cover 10 minuetes of game time one session, and 2 weeks the next. If you were reading a book based on that campaign it would make little sense to you as the reader why Dead Bob could switch 3 times during the brief fight in the caverns of the Hag Queen but only 3 times during the next 2 battles on the road and the trade fair at Hogblight put together. If the bracer had been organized by uses per day no such counter intuitive narrative would have occured.

 

[GreatLemur]

LOL. I'm serious though. I don't understand what pawsplay's trying to say here.

I think his objection is to using out-of-character circumstances--such as when a game session begins and ends--to regulate in-game circumstances--such as when your wizard can cast his big spell. What does that situation literally mean to the wizard, in the game world? Sometimes he can only fireball once in a couple days, sometimes he can do it several times in a day?

I can understand his feelings, here. Per-session balancing bugs my simulationist side. Per-encounter is a lot easier to swallow, though I do have to admit that it's weird to think that non-magical abilities like a warblade's maneuvers should ever be exhausted, however briefly, by anything other than the total physical exhaustion of their user. Still, I think I can reconcile it as opponents not allowing openings for the same thing to be done twice in a row, as the warblade needing to find the proper moment or position to execute an advanted technique, and as the momentart literal exhaustion or straining of the specific muscles needed to perform a given maneuver.