Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)

[Andor]

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

PS: by the way, I think the "per session" unit works for tactical abilities specifically. For instance, the bracers allowing an incorporeal/corporeal or vice versa switch 3/game session I was talking about earlier allow this change to happen quickly. The bracers also allow an unlimited amount of changes with a minute of concentration.

That's a much better system than what I recieved as an initial impression of the sort of system you were describing. Perhaps the best term would be 'Per scene'?

The big problem with systems such as you are fond of is that they work great, as long as you have a sensible GM. Most of us however have occasionaly been stuck with a GM who desperately needed a radical rectalcraniectomy.

As long as the book spells out a good set of guidelines for what constitutes a scene (And mentions that anything that would be a red arrow moving over a map in an indiana jones movie is not a single scene) it would work, you just have to beware that lowest common DMinator.

 

[pawsplay]

Aside from being lame and unrealistic, what if you are trying to run something that is time-dependent? If the PC's know they are going to get stomped by continuining, are you going to force them?

They have the option of pulling back, and of course, the risk of being destroyed.

And if your players are resting after every battle, why not just refresh their abilities after every battle and just go with it? I would bet that your game wouldn't suffer for it at all.

My players aren't resting after every battle. Sometimes, they get attacked while recuperating, and other times, they push ahead because they want to stay ahead of reinforcements or discovery.

My PCs do NOT get eight hours of rest between each battle. And if I wish them to, I can give them a night's rest any time I wish to. So I still have the option you are suggesting, but I also have at my disposal the use of time and risk as a challenge to my players.

 

[Psion]

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.

That conclusion is mistaken. My statement was not a direct commentary on any game supplement, but rather, on your assertion to a supposed guiding principle that I do not agree with.

To wit, my statement quipped above was in direct response to your statement: "You are supposed to be determining things in terms of the base genres that D&D seeks to emulate".

My response amplifies that not only do I not accept that as a central or sole guiding principle in game design, but using such a guiding principle will, quite often, result in a less satisfactory end result. The game which does the best at emulating the source material is not necessarily the best game; considerations which work well in literature or film often work poorly when implemented in the context of an RPG. Likewise, considerations that would not work well in film or literature work great in RPGs.

 

[hong]

That conclusion is mistaken. My statement was not a direct commentary on any game supplement, but rather, on your assertion to a supposed guiding principle that I do not agree with.

... IOW, your statement had nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, as far as I can tell.

To wit, my statement quipped above was in direct response to your statement: "You are supposed to be determining things in terms of the base genres that D&D seeks to emulate".

Yes. Because in the end, there are still genre conventions to be held to. Without some sort of external constraint on what's possible in the game, we might as well use lightsabers and starships. Or THAC0.

My response amplifies that not only do I not accept that as a central or sole guiding principle in game design, but using such a guiding principle will, quite often, result in a less satisfactory end result. The game which does the best at emulating the source material is not necessarily the best game; considerations which work well in literature or film often work poorly when implemented in the context of an RPG. Likewise, considerations that would not work well in film or literature work great in RPGs.

... like this had anything to do with per-encounter balancing. VERY FEW other RPGs have anything like the elaborate framework D&D has built around abilities usable per day. There is nothing that REQUIRES an RPG to have abilities that are rationed per day. It is a construct that has everything to do with D&D and its historical idiosyncrasies, and nothing to do with "the context of an RPG". Next thing you know, you'll be saying that RPGs must have hit points and alignments or something.

 

[DreadArchon]

I wouldn't want a universal system. I like having loads of little subsystems with different balancing mechanics.

I agree. A universal system is a good way to get me to buy another game entirely--there's just no point playing a game for very long when everything you can possibly do is functionally identical. (I'm looking at you, Unisystem!)

That's where you introduce caveats to the particular uses of abilities ("unless there is a rest/fast forward segment to the adventure in which case the ability is usable under the DM's adjudication"), and probably another, intermediary term between encounter and session, like an "adventure segment" (designing actions in the same broad stroke of the adventure involving several encounters, like investigating a person, visiting a section of the dungeon, traveling for two weeks, etc).

We have that now. It's called "encounters per day."

"Because you slept for 8 of the previous 8.5 hours and just aren't tired enough to do it again" is a perfectly good reason for the party to be incapable of resting after each and every encounter, and in anything even vaguely resembling a time constraint it tends to force sessions (or large chunks thereof) into divisions by day. For example, my current game has the players in a Yugoloth fortress. They've dropped a few guards and explored a few areas, but the whole story segment is going to happen in one day (unless they retreat entirely to start over) because the 'Loths will discover the intrusion and replace their guards (and go on alert) if the PC's screw around. (That and the PC's just recently got a full night of sleep.)

Honestly though, if I had a player just pick up books and saying stuff like that at the game table, he wouldn't be welcomed back for next session without a serious discussion about what he did.

"You won't let us do anything until we quit the game" sounds like a pretty good reason to me. (This would be especially silly in my current game--the Succubus with 3/day teleportation suddenly gets to teleport six times in as many minutes because her player got called in to work in real life?) I suppose that what works for you works for you, but I'm pretty sure that if I started distributing rewards for quitting the game, I'd get to play a whole lot less.

 

[hong]

I agree. A universal system is a good way to get me to buy another game entirely--there's just no point playing a game for very long when everything you can possibly do is functionally identical. (I'm looking at you, Unisystem!)

Until such time that fighters can teleport halfway around the globe, rogues can resurrect dead people, or barbarians can gate in demons, we're going to be a long way from "functionally identical".

 

[Psion]

... IOW, your statement had nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, as far as I can tell.

It was a direct response to a premise you offered why I should be agreeing with your position.

So long as you believe that what you had to say had to do with the topic at hand, the relation to the topic should be pretty apparent.

Yes. Because in the end, there are still genre conventions to be held to. Without some sort of external constraint on what's possible in the game, we might as well use lightsabers and starships. Or THAC0.

Excluded middle.

Because I accept that there needs be some conventions that D&D needs to have if it is going to properly be a fantasy RPG does not mean that the ones you have chosen to levy on it are particularly needful or helpful. Especially considering it seems to have done so quite successfully for on the order of 30 years.

... like this had anything to do with per-encounter balancing. VERY FEW other RPGs have anything like the elaborate framework D&D has built around abilities usable per day.

And? Other than some weird take on the bandwagon fallacy, I'm not seeing what conclusion you think I should draw from this.

There is nothing that REQUIRES an RPG to have abilities that are rationed per day.

I never said it did. Just because I find something functional and effective in some games doesn't mean I necessarily find it appropriate for all games, all situations, and all playstyles.

It is a construct that has everything to do with D&D and its historical idiosyncrasies, and nothing to do with "the context of an RPG". Next thing you know, you'll be saying that RPGs must have hit points and alignments or something.

You have a real penchant for trying to say "what I mean" or "what I'll be saying next", don't you? Again, I'll thank you refrain from trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[hong]

It was a direct response to a premise you offered why I should be agreeing with your position.

It was a direct response which was irrelevant to the topic at hand.

So long as you believe that what you had to say had to do with the topic at hand, the relation to the topic should be pretty apparent.

Nope, not really. As far as I can tell, it was just a prepackaged soundbite.

Excluded middle.

Don't make absolute statements based on iffy premises, and there will be no excluded middle.

Because I accept that there needs be some conventions that D&D needs to have if it is going to properly be a fantasy RPG does not mean that the ones you have chosen to levy on it are particularly needful or helpful. Especially considering it seems to have done so quite successfully for on the order of 30 years.

Clearly "successful" is a contingent belief. It would appear that at least a substantial minority, if not a majority, have problems with the way D&D handles ability rationing, else we wouldn't have had a whole slew of per-encounter abilities coming out in the last few years, mostly to a positive reception. That's more than just Bo9S, but also warlocks, reserve feats, etc.

Furthermore, going on about stuff D&D has done successfully for 30 years applies just as much to all the other idiosyncrasies of D&D that 3E swept away. Things like THAC0, separate XP charts for different classes, and so on. In this regard, the grognards at Dragonsfoot did this better than you.

And? Other than some weird take on the bandwagon fallacy, I'm not seeing what conclusion you think I should draw from this.

It indicates that objections to per-encounter balancing on the grounds that it goes against what RPGs do best are wooly-minded at best. Since plenty of RPGs do perfectly well without having abilities rationed per day, your statement

not only do I not accept that as a central or sole guiding principle in game design, but using such a guiding principle will, quite often, result in a less satisfactory end result. The game which does the best at emulating the source material is not necessarily the best game; considerations which work well in literature or film often work poorly when implemented in the context of an RPG. Likewise, considerations that would not work well in film or literature work great in RPGs.​

is vacuous, unless by "RPG" you mean "D&D". In which case, see previous comments about D&Disms and idiosyncrasies of the ruleset.

I never said it did. Just because I find something functional and effective in some games doesn't mean I necessarily find it appropriate for all games, all situations, and all playstyles.

Does this mean you'll cease waffling about "the context of an RPG" like it was some sort of universal declaration?

You have a real penchant for trying to say "what I mean" or "what I'll be saying next", don't you? Again, I'll thank you refrain from trying to put words in my mouth.

It's called a logical deduction. The fact that your argument can be applied to produce silly results is an indication that the argument is flawed. And that in turn is your problem, not mine. So, do you believe hit points and alignments are a key part of the roleplaying experience, or not?

 

[Psion]

Clearly "successful" is a contingent belief. It would appear that at least a substantial minority, if not a majority, have problems with the way D&D handles ability rationing,

"It would appear"? According to what? I don't think that I should need to tell you the correlation between intarweb hype and the actual state of satisfaction of the customer base.

Even if it is so, that has very little to do with what I find functional in creating an entertaining RPGing experience. For example, "it would appear" that the "back to the dungeon" design aesthetic is very popular and all too telling in shaping the design of D&D, but I get more enjoyment out of a campaign that is not so fixated on dungeon crawls.

So strike two for the bandwagon fallacy.

else we wouldn't have had a whole slew of per-encounter abilities coming out in the last few years, mostly to a positive reception. That's more than just Bo9S, but also warlocks, reserve feats, etc.

Okay? Since some people like some measure of per-encounter abilities, it should follow that we should institute it across the board and/or that all people like it or would like to see it instituted across the board? That remains to be demonstrated.

Furthermore, going on about stuff D&D has done successfully for 30 years applies just as much to all the other idiosyncrasies of D&D that 3E swept away. Things like THAC0, separate XP charts for different classes, and so on.

And yet, other things that people regularly decry like classes, levels, and hit points, remain.

Some classical conventions of the game have authentic value in producing an enjoyable game. Some do not.

It indicates that objections to per-encounter balancing on the grounds that it goes against what RPGs do best are wooly-minded at best.

Nope. I never even so much as claimed that per-encounter balancing is "against what RPGs do best". So far as I have seen, nobody has made a case to me why "per encounter balancing" is better "emulating the source material" at all.

I'm just saying that even if that turns out to be the case, that alone is not a sufficiently compelling argument for me to accept a mechanic or convention into a game design.

It's called a logical deduction.

No, pretending that I hold positions that I do not hold, is called strawmanning. Not to mention rude.

 

[GlassJaw]

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.

By universal system, I meant a mechanic that all classes would use, regardless of ability.

I gave of an example of it in a previous post in that a wizard might have a spell they could use a certain number of times per encounter and a fighter could have a special attack or stance they could use a certain number of times per encounter.

Whatever ability the player decides upon each round - spell, special attack, magic blast, etc - doesn't really matter. What matters is that each class has various choices that are on various timers and are balances accordingly. Something a fighter can do once per encounter should be on the same power level as what a wizard can do once per encounter.