Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)

[hong]

A few years back, one of my players, the cleric, staged a in-game protest during a fairly involved combat with some Frost Giants and winter wolves. The battle took place mostly under cover and involved lots of ranged combat. The rogue and cleric, feeling useless in this situation, sat down and began cooking soup. I resolved to try and not let that happen again. My main concern is that something like per-combat resets would heighten that problem, not remove it.

Huh? How does that heighten the problem?

 

[WhatGravitas]

What about replacing "per session" with "per adventure segment/chapter" then?

I've addressed that above, but perhaps not very clearly:

It creates a kind of strange conundrum: Players who achieve their goal, will be fine, but it makes defeat even more hurting.

An exaggerated example: A wizard needs to overcome a monster to get to the next chapter/segment. He loses, but escapes with his life. Now he cannot rest and make a new advance, because he hasn't ended the last chapter. See the problem?

Basically, it takes the players' freedom to plan away, at least to a certain amount.

Of course, the DM could call that a "chapter", but now we are getting closer and closer to arbitrary DM fiat. Good for story-based games... but it's not so much D&Dish.

Therefore, I've posted my idea above: Combine a time-limit with an in-game "refresh", like a ley-line, a mystic circle, whatever. This would allow the DM to set story-keeping points, but would still allow the players to decide their time plan.

 

[WizarDru]

Huh? How does that heighten the problem?

The Bo9S is primarily a fighter book, correct? Suddenly giving them additional per-combat manuevers that heighten their effectiveness would throw the balance even wider in some respects, wouldn't it? That's probably not the best example without further explanation, but what I'm wondering is that unless you begin giving everyone per-combat replenishable abilities, doesn't this give the fighter a lot more mojo while effectively de-powering the support character types, at least within combat? I'm not saying it does, I'm asking the question.

 

[Nifft]

Tome of Battle isn't really giving the Fighter anything. It's saying, instead of feats which you can use at-will, here are some cool things you can do slightly less frequently (which may be stronger than feats).

The Fighter still has a reason to live (thanks to PHB-II and dipping in for 2 to 4 levels), but now there's a melee character that blends the melee power of a Barbarian with the tactical flexibility of a prepared-slot spellcaster.

Sure, the raging Barbarian will probably out-damage the Martial Adept in a straight up fight, but the Martial Adept isn't limited to x/day rages, and he's also not limited to "charge" and "full attack".

Cheers, -- N

 

[Odhanan]

I've addressed that above, but perhaps not very clearly:

It creates a kind of strange conundrum: Players who achieve their goal, will be fine, but it makes defeat even more hurting.

An exaggerated example: A wizard needs to overcome a monster to get to the next chapter/segment. He loses, but escapes with his life. Now he cannot rest and make a new advance, because he hasn't ended the last chapter. See the problem?

I think I see what you mean, yes. It all depends on how you define a chapter/segment and how it's implemented by the DM. If it's clearly defined as linked encounters that reach a form of resolution or benchmark (resolution meaning it can be positive or negative), with specific examples provided with the guide as to how you design these segments and how they combine to create a full adventure, I think it wouldn't be a problem, though, but for the most stubborn/uncaring/incompetent DMs out there.

Therefore, I've posted my idea above: Combine a time-limit with an in-game "refresh", like a ley-line, a mystic circle, whatever. This would allow the DM to set story-keeping points, but would still allow the players to decide their time plan.

But isn't it still DM fiat in essence? Instead of saying when effectively the adventure segment ends, he decides when the gimmic comes into play. In practice, this allows the same type of abuses. For that matter, is it different from the DM fiat in saying when the days end and start in the game?

 

[Zaruthustran]

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.

Seems like reserve feats may be a good middle ground between per-encounter "let the player do cool stuff all the time" permissiveness and per-day "save the big spell for the final round" drama.

Also, wouldn't per-encounter powers just make the drama of "save the big ability for the right moment" happen more often? If I've got a killer gee-whiz 1/day ability that makes everyone cheer when I finally let rip for the day, wouldn't it be more fun if I could use the ability--and get my party cheering--once per encounter?

-z

 

[Psion]

Odhanan I gotta disagree with you on that. Per session usages would vaporize my immersion. It's the ultimate intrusion of meta-game concerns affecting in game events for no freaking reason that is perceptible in game.

Since most resources that are typically handled in a "per session" manner aren't perceptible within the milieu of the game, it doesn't disturb my immersion greatly, at least not any more that the author's hand in novels that you are all telling me I should be emulating above.

And to me, immersion is more about manipulating the emotional state of the players during the game. The real world meatspace concerns of getting the players at the table, getting them involved in the game, and getting them emotionally engaged is to me a much more meaningful measure to control immersion in than most in-milieu measures of time.

Per session mechanics don't work.

As alluded to above, my experience differs.

 

[Psion]

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

No, precisely unlike that. But I'll thank you not to presume what I mean when you know quite clearly that is not what I mean.

 

[Psion]

Seems like reserve feats may be a good middle ground between per-encounter "let the player do cool stuff all the time" permissiveness and per-day "save the big spell for the final round" drama.

Precisely. It lets the arcane types keep their nova abilities, but not make them feel totally useless at other times.

 

[hong]

No, precisely unlike that. But I'll thank you not to presume what I mean when you know quite clearly that is not what I mean.

Well, it helps if you say what you mean.

This is what you said.

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.​

So, since we were talking about stuff that appears IN AN RPG SUPPLEMENT, I can only conclude that you believe Bo9S has nothing to do with RPGs. If this conclusion is mistaken, feel free to expand.