Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)

[Henry]

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.

What happens, however, if the whole system gets balanced on that "doing things all day" motif, though? I think PCat has a good point here: Using Nine Swords Maneuvers as an example, it seems that what's likely to happen is:

Swordsage/Warblade has his 3 or 4 maneuvers picked.
Round 1: He opens with his Ancient/Elder/Regular Mountain Hammer.
Round 2: Follows with his Adamantine/Mithral/Steel beatdown.
Round 3: Next comes his throw/strike of choice.
Round 4: Etc.
Stance might change, but more often remains where it is. Next combat, he does it again, in that same order of power.

On the other hand, you can't throw fireballs or meteor swarms all day long, because you run out after the first or second combat, if you're not careful. When you do run out, the next fight has to open with some other spells. And when you're last resource is a Knock and a phase door, you REALLY have got to come up with a crafty plan.

 

[Odhanan]

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.

But then, at our game table, myself and the players aren't playing out a "narrative". We're experiencing actual events as they occur, once again. Sometimes, you have people who have surges of power, sometimes not, use their abilities, or not, so on, so forth.

Besides, it can make sense that Bob can switch three times during one combat and then just a few times during a succession of others, because when you are experiencing the events themselves you're not thinking in terms of "Oh, I used this maneuver two times already! Maybe I shouldn't do it again!" On the contrary, a "per encounter/session" design keeps meta-game thinking with the actual game practice, out of the fiction, which makes more sense for immersion from my point of view.

 

[GlassJaw]

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.

Declining resources also encourages a slow pace. If a group blows their load in the first battle of the day, why would they continue knowing full well that they are completely tapped out? "But you just rested, you can't rest again!", replies the DM.

I also don't find it very fun to wait to do something cool because I only get one shot at it per day. And there's also the chance that by playing conservatively, I miss out on my chance to do something cool.

The better design lies somewhere in the middle. Per encounter design raises some problems: healing, utility magic, divination/info gather, rage, etc. Some of these things might have to stay per day.

But giving players more per encounter options would speed up play in my opinion and just be more fun. What's the difference between giving a wizard a permanent 1d8 energy blast and firinga crossbow? Which one is cooler and has more flavor?

 

[GreatLemur]

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 agree completely, except with the assertion that this direction has more to do with marketing people than design people. It's definitely a possibility, but I ain't convinced. It's not an idea that feels at all alien to the current D&D/d20 player zeitgeist, if that makes any sense. Frankly, I've wanted D&D to end the "I sleep for eight hours" bit for the whole two decades or whatever that I've been a gamer. And I've been annoyed by "dead levels" since 3E first came out. It just seems like good game design sense to give players not even just "something cool" but an actual decision every time they earn a new character level (open multiclassing is nice, certainly, but I'm thinking more along the lines of feats and optional class features).

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.

Hell, I wouldn't want a universal system. I like having loads of little subsystems with different balancing mechanics. But I could definitely imagine a lot of effects with very different fluff using the maneuver system. Frankly, I think it'd work pretty damned nicely for the combat-specific half of a new magic system.

 

[GreatLemur]

What happens, however, if the whole system gets balanced on that "doing things all day" motif, though? I think PCat has a good point here: Using Nine Swords Maneuvers as an example, it seems that what's likely to happen is:

Swordsage/Warblade has his 3 or 4 maneuvers picked.
Round 1: He opens with his Ancient/Elder/Regular Mountain Hammer.
Round 2: Follows with his Adamantine/Mithral/Steel beatdown.
Round 3: Next comes his throw/strike of choice.
Round 4: Etc.
Stance might change, but more often remains where it is. Next combat, he does it again, in that same order of power.

On the other hand, you can't throw fireballs or meteor swarms all day long, because you run out after the first or second combat, if you're not careful. When you do run out, the next fight has to open with some other spells. And when you're last resource is a Knock and a phase door, you REALLY have got to come up with a crafty plan.

I agree, more or less. But while I'm not hoping for a universal per-encounter / unlimited use paradigm, I could imagine how tactical complexity and varied combat dynamics might be re-achieved if that were the case. There'd be a lot more shiftable modes (such as stances) that render some tactics much more viable than others, a lot more immunities and resistances, a lot more active and usable environmental features, and so on. Basically, ways for the circumstances of combat to vary, even though the PCs' personal capabilities remain relatively static.

Of course, all this is neglecting the whole, wide world outside of combat, which develops its own glaring issues once you stop doing the uses-per-day thing, but I'm not going to try and take that on now.

 

[WhatGravitas]

The better design lies somewhere in the middle. Per encounter design raises some problems: healing, utility magic, divination/info gather, rage, etc. Some of these things might have to stay per day.

True - and a good mix encourages a good mixture of the classes. ToB is a good example: It furthers the fighter paradigm of "doing it allthe day, as long as Hit Points last", thereby defining the caster niche as "some times per day BIG(tm)" far better than before.

Adding some all-day stuff for spellcasters (fighters don't need it, since they're already daily limited by hp - and so much more than spellcasters), and you can probably get:
1) The fun of per-encounter: You don't need to rest all the time, you can always do more than twiddling your fingers.
2) The strategic thrill of per-day: Long-term planning and adjusting is a fun game in itself, and should stay in some kind, beyond "run out of hit points". Combining with 1), we don't need resting that often, but can still restrict "stoopid" stuff.

This thread 's generates a big deal of insight, at least in me

 

[Odhanan]

The better design lies somewhere in the middle. Per encounter design raises some problems: healing, utility magic, divination/info gather, rage, etc. Some of these things might have to stay per day.

Just to be clear, I agree with this and in this sort of instance I think that the corollary of "per day" shouldn't be "per encounter" but "per game session". This keeps the resource management intact and puts the reference frame on the same point of view. I sincerely believe that'd be the middle ground you're talking about GlassJaw.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Star Wars Saga Edition looks like it may be an even nicer second attempt, from all the things I'm reading from people who've got early access to the books. Not D&D, but a nicer, smoother way of balancing things than Bo9S AFAICS at the moment.

OK, it's not D&D... but I could imagine some quite interesting fantasy campaign possibilities based around SWSE.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Just to be clear, I agree with this and in this sort of instance I think that the corollary of "per day" shouldn't be "per encounter" but "per game session". This keeps the resource management intact and puts the reference frame on the same point of view. I sincerely believe that'd be the middle ground you're talking about GlassJaw.

But the problem with "per game session" is, that it destroys the narrative. In-game, there is no "per session".
Furthermore (besides making verisimilitude harder), it is counter-intuitive. Why? Let's see: The PCs further the plot, have a fun session, and make good progress? Then they get less "per-session" abilities - it punishes the PCs for forwarding the plot.
If anything, then such a "refreshing" should be tied to:
a) Time in game (current solution).
b) Plot points (so it actually rewards players for furthering the plot, but then, players who "don't get it" will suffer even more, because they cannot use their tools to further the plot).
c) In-game "refreshment points". Mystic circles, ley-lines: The DM can place that stuff as a reward, and it gives the PCs a way to "backup" - they actually have a reason to buy a house at a ley-line cross, keeps will be built there, and so on.
d) Any combination of the above, probably a) and c).

 

[Odhanan]

I rather think the "per session" makes verisimilitude easier by keeping game mechanics out of the fiction.

Furthermore, I have not seen, in my experience, the players actually slowing down the game because their abilities would be "per session". Mechanics being cleanly separated from the fiction, one does not come to mind as influencing the other in our minds.

In fact, the "per encounter" design is similar to, for instance, the "per scene" design elements of World of Darkness games, and I've never seen anybody tell me it was counter-intuitive to game immersion. Ever. In essence, though, that's just a change of word, the game unit being the same!