Gold Roger said:
I'm split.
One the one head I like the idea that most abilities shouldn't be as restricted anymore. I like the idea to remove the absolute need for rest. I like the idea that every class can do some special stuff.
But on the other hand I think this idea could be taken to far. Some people like recource management. Some effects shouldn't be just chucked around at will. Making "everyone can do cool stuff all the time" is, in a way, (Gosh, that is going to sound terribly eliteist, but bear with me for a moment) dumbing down the game.
You see all of this is what I call "simple fun". Don't understand me wrong. I love movies you don't have to think about while watching, I love stupid entertainment, I at times love the hack'n'slash encounter. But I also love the stuff I have to think about before it entertains me. The "complex fun". This might be a complex engaging movie. An unorthodox piece of music. A really challenging computer game, that frustrates me before I finally beat it. This could also be playing a vancian spellcaster or fighting/DMing a frustrating monster in D&D like a guy with invisibility at will and hit and run or a rustmonster.
In terms of the frustrating monsters or complex tactical challenges, I agree with you.
Resource management, not so much.
I don't think many people would consider chess 'simple,' yet each individual piece has only a very limited set of moves and no resource management whatsoever, outside of whether you want to sacrifice it to set up a later move.
I would actually say resource management is the most simplistic way of creating challenge - but it's hardly the only way. Removing all encounter-to-encounter resource management elements, clearing out the ablative encounters that clog most 'dungeon' style intense tactical adventures and replacing them with truly epic (and extremely challenging) set piece battles would change the feel of the game, but wouldn't have to make it any easier. In fact, this could easily ratchet up the difficulty as designers felt free to plan encounters for a fully healed, full power party instead of considering whether or not the PCs would be able to rest - and potentially making the encounter a cakewalk if they come up with an unexpected way of doing so.
For that matter, you don't necessarily have to take away resource management that accounts for in-encounter actions (like Mutants & Mastermind's Hero Point system or Iron Heroes' tokens). A succession of 'limit break' style abilities, or Magic the Gathering style building up of resources on a per match basis, would force the player to choose between doing a 'cool thing' now, a 'pretty cool' thing now and a 'really cool' thing next round, and so on.
Gold Roger said:
Right now, D&D has both of this, often at the same time. I agree the "simple fun" part can be wastly improved and smoothed out. But it seems many designers have become so enarmored with "simple fun" that they somehow think that "complex fun" isn't good, simply because it's harder to make worthwhile. Yes, a bad DM can ruin the game with a rust monster. But other DM's can greatly enhance the game using rust monsters.
By all means should the scope of "simple fun" be expanded, but don't remove the possibilty for "complx fun" either.
Again, I don't see how it's 'simple fun' because it has no element of encounter-to-encounter resource management. Lots of games are considerably more complex than D&D in this regard, and definitely a lot more challenging than D&D's core assumptions, without having that element.
Gold Roger said:
Another concern I have is the person that wants, in a mechanical sense at least, even simpler fun.
You know those really casual folks, who usually have an barbarian or somesuch, simply attack every round, can't be bothered to remember any special ability behind barbarian rage! and have great fun with that?
Or the really engaged story player, that doesn't like to load himself with rules options?
I've had countless of those players. Give them characters that have to make a choice every round and you've got them out of the hobby real fast. And I like my variety in D&D. As well as gaming tables with more than two or three hardcore D&D players at them.
So I'd prefer a hybrid system, where most spellcasters have invocations/at-will-magic and vancian spells and most noncasters have the option (via feats) between "Thog Smash" and swashbuckling maneuvering Flashy McJumpalot.
Personally, my feeling is that players of both stripes are better off with dedicated systems that serve them exactly the kind of experience they want. Sooner or later, having the two types at the same table always seems to cause problems, or at least to keep both from enjoying themselves to the fullest.