Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)

[GlassJaw]

Originally Posted by GlassJaw
Per session mechanics don't work.

As alluded to above, my experience differs.

Perhaps I should clarify my statement: you can't design a core ruleset that uses a per session core unit of time.

Can you imagine 4ed (which is really what we are all talking about here) implementing this type of mechanic? That's opening up an extremely uncontrolled environment to design to. There are just way too many variables to consider.

Now I'm not saying per session mechanics, whether they are variants, house rules, etc, won't work, just that it can't be a core mechanic.

I can imagine the players coming to BBEG but saying, "no, let's wait until next session so I'll get all my abilities back". Yeah, that's great for gameplay.

 

[Psion]

Perhaps I should clarify my statement: you can't design a core ruleset that uses a per session core unit of time.

Can you imagine 4ed (which is really what we are all talking about here) implementing this type of mechanic? That's opening up an extremely uncontrolled environment to design to. There are just way too many variables to consider.

Now I'm not saying per session mechanics, whether they are variants, house rules, etc, won't work, just that it can't be a core mechanic.

What do you mean by a core mechanic here?

I wouldn't have claimed experience to the contrary if it weren't for the fact that I am actually playing a third party D20 game that uses per-session mechanics. That game is Spycraft 2.0.

For comparison's purposes, if you aren't familiar, Spycraft 2.0 uses per-session ratings of abilities in that:

• It provides an action dice allotment that refreshes every session. FWIW, I find this much more satisfactory than the per-level allotment of action points.
• Several class abilities are rated in number of uses per session. (Several abilities AREN'T as well, but if there is a per-time period sort of thing, it's usually per-session.)

I don't know the scope of problems you expect or if this is even the sort of mechanic you speak of, but I haven't found it to work out poorly in play. Quite the contrary.

I can imagine the players coming to BBEG but saying, "no, let's wait until next session so I'll get all my abilities back". Yeah, that's great for gameplay.

(Shrug) Not many of the people I play with, honestly. They come to play. Getting that last hour of play in before they have to return to the real world and/or putting an ending to things is probably a bigger motivator for a more typical player to me.

I do think catering to the most munchkin common denominator can make games less fun for the non-munchkins.

 

[Piratecat]

Okay. Hong, Psion - enough. Stop addressing points at one another. When you start to address arguments to a person instead of to the subject at hand, it's time to either leave the thread or start being civil.

If you wrote a reply and then saw this announcement at the top of the new page, please go edit your post.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I was going to say, having played in your game, that Eastern-style wire-fu is definitely not your style, at all. (and the Sword Sages you had show up didn't really come across as Oriental, either) Which in a way shows how much of what's in Bo9S is flavor text.

Actually, since you're a hard man to reach by e-mail these days, I figured I'd shamelessly use this to get your attention, and ask about what your GenCon plans are this year, since Chris mentioned something about invitationals and such...

(Matt)

Hey Matt! Sent you some email. GenCon should be awesome as usual; I hope you can make it (details in email).

And yep, I guess we can't post our whole campaign here, but thanks for pointing that out. The Land of Nine Swords was exotic but not Eastern-style wire-fu.

 

[Khuxan]

For my own group, I've started to create a Tome of Battle-esque system for warriors, adventurers and spellcasters, with reserve points and a few other third-party elements. The entire system was supposed to consist of maneuvers. Reading over this thread, however, I've begun to wonder if per-level or per-day or per-session action points could also be handed out - and those action points used to accomplish really big things. I'm thinking rituals, contacts, powerful spells, recovering all your reserve points, healing half your hit points, doing heroic things at the GM's discretion and so on.

 

[Odhanan]

Can you imagine 4ed (which is really what we are all talking about here) implementing this type of mechanic? That's opening up an extremely uncontrolled environment to design to. There are just way too many variables to consider.

Why would it be "uncontrolled", and what are these "many variables" to consider, GlassJaw? I just don't understand what you mean here. Some precise examples/issues would help me conciderably. Thanks!

 

[GlassJaw]

Why would it be "uncontrolled", and what are these "many variables" to consider, GlassJaw? I just don't understand what you mean here. Some precise examples/issues would help me conciderably. Thanks!

Well I alluded to some potential problems earlier, most notably in-game elapsed time per session.

But let's say you are designing a module for a system where the core unit of time for "recharge" is per session. By core I mean it's the main controlling unit of time that the system is based upon.

The first challenge is determining how many challenges the party can overcome before needing to recharge. This has a great effect on EL. The rule of thumb is that a party has a 50% change to overcome an encounter of equal CR and only spending 100% of their resources. So I know in my module design, I want to space those difficult challenges out so the party is not overwhelmed. I know that by placing such a challenge, I can space it out within the module so the party will be fully rested before encountering it. I can do this because the rule of thumb for encounters is based on in-game time and resources expenditure.

Enter per session recharge.

As a designer, how do I know how many encounters a particular gaming group will get through in a session? How do I know if a group plays in 2 or 4 hour blocks? It also creates a system in which combat is weighted more heavily in terms of real time (because combat tends to take longer) than out of combat challenges (like disarming traps).

I could drain a group's resources quickly by throwing a lot of non-combat challenges at them versus one or two combat encounters.

It only compounds when the in-game time during a particular session isn't linear. What if the party starts a session with a big battle (equal CR or higher) and then has to travel a week to another area and fight another big battle? In a per day or per encounter system, the party will be at full strength for each encounter. Will they be in a per session system? Perhaps not unless you further complicate the system by adding expceptions to the rule (refresh per session unless in-game time elapsed is greater than a day, etc), in which case a per session mechanic does nothing to serve actual gameplay.

The only thing that would work on a per session basis is something that is closely tied to the story itself - per scene, chapter, etc. But per session can't be a core mechanic.

 

[WhatGravitas]

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?

(yeah, I've read GlassJaw's post above, which addresses similar points)

1) The per-day mechanic gives the players the potential to choose, when they regain their stuff. It gives them a sense of control, unlike "pure DM-fiat". It's like railroading - it's only bad, if the players recognize it. An in-game times gives them the illusion to know how long they will last.

2) The per-day mechanic is a deterrent. While it's DM fiat to say when a day starts or ends, it is a relatively intuitive concept to us - days. We know it. And since it is something we're very used to, it deters (especially unexperienced DMs) to screw with it - new DMs will rather screw up with a "per chapter/session", than with "per-day", because the "per-day" is more intuitive to you as human.

Granted, it is still DM fiat, but veiled and dressed in an intuitive concept, even if it sounds silly.

However, the results are good: Honestly, when I've DM'd first (I'm a 3rd editioner), I understood CR, and expected encounters per day very well. My players knew, that "per day" gave them the possibility to set their time plan.

I don't know, what would've happened with "per-scene" - perhaps it would've been better, but I know that "per-day" was intuitively enough for me to grasp easily, without "metagame-thinking". And for new DMs, that's good, at least IMHO.

 

[Henry]

I can see what GlassJaw is talking about. To use Spycraft 2 as an example, imagine a session consisting of a dramatic break-in, dodging guards, bypassing code-locks, sleep-gassing dogs, gunfights with security, etc. -- Now, ignoring the dramatic conflict rules a second, because we're talking "big show-down" here, during such a session the pressure would be high NOT to waste your once or twice a session abilities until the end or close to the end, because of all the round-by-round action going on.

Change over to a session where the investigators are taking half or two-thirds of the session role-playing, digging for clues, item-shopping, etc. before a big show-down at the session end. There's less pressure on using abilities, because you're going to lose them at the end of the session, anyway, so it's time to blow an ability ANY and EVERY time it's appropriate.

I've found playing Spycraft (haven't played it as much as Psion, mind you), that it can be a bit of a pain planning and orchestrating the dramatic tension, and making sure that people don't run out of "per session"abilities long before the end (or conversely, MAKING SURE that they're running on fumes when the end comes! ) The great things, though, are the abilities fueled by action points, because a GM can make sure that the players have as many of those as they need, because he can award them throughout the game.

 

[DreadArchon]

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.

Yeah, that's what I think should be avoided. I'd much rather it be varied*--Fighters and Warlocks who are weaker in a single encounter but who can go full-tilt all week, Wizards and... I don't know, maybe Paladins, who can do the "red-lined table saw" thing but take a while to recharge, Bards and Barbarians, who take a long time to recharge but also a long time to use their abilities, and now Martial Adepts and the like who have fast recharge times but still have to actively recharge. And, of course, a whole mess of stuff in splatbooks that smears these up into each other at the player's option.

Why would it be "uncontrolled", and what are these "many variables" to consider, GlassJaw? I just don't understand what you mean here. Some precise examples/issues would help me conciderably.

It's far easier to enforce metagame balance on in-game events than it is to force in-game events onto metagame balance. Take your "per session" rules, for example. With my group, one session can last anywhere from one to seven hours, and story arc length can vary wildly even accounting for actual play time (e.g. one module can take four hours, which might even be two sessions, whereas another, equally-long module can take fifteen hours... which still might end up being only two sessions, though that's a stretch). Apparently, some groups play for a whole day at a time, or one whole weekend a month, or a certain set time limit, etc.

Balancing by totally metagame considerations, such as session length, would thus be functionally impossible. The best you could do would be to have a scaling table dictating how often something can happen based on both session time and story arc length, with (as you mentioned) rules for fast-forwarding if need be. Even then, each module would need an intro page detailing how one should should modify things based on sessions length.

On the other hand, "per day" or "per encounter" is an in-game concept that one can metagame fairly easily if need be. As a DM, it's entirely reasonable (in many cases) to simply put your foot down and say "No. You can't rest here. The world is not waiting for you; this session/arc/adventure takes place within a single day/week/etc., unless you retreat completely and start over. No, I don't care if you know Rope Trick, you woke up 40 minutes ago and you're just not tired enough to go back to sleep."





*All comparisons from here out are meant to be compared to each other in a hypothetical 4th Edition, not to their current forms.