I want to do something cool Every Round!!!

[Crothian]

<sigh>

This is what I consider a sign of the apocalypse. First they dumbed down my MMORPGs to cater to the 'I have to be the center of attention ADHD set', now they are coming for my pen and paper RPGs too.

Who is "they"?

 

[Berandor]

If you don't know who "they" are, then their subterfuge has been succesful, or you just pretend because you're one of them. In other words, don't listen to Rodrigo, or they just might knock on your door some day and take you away...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This is what I consider a sign of the apocalypse. First they dumbed down my MMORPGs to cater to the 'I have to be the center of attention ADHD set', now they are coming for my pen and paper RPGs too.

Yes, hitting autoattack and going to the kitchen was much better than requiring players of an MMORPG to actually play the game.

Doing something cool every round is nothing special. Working so that you can do something *really* cool once in a while is more rewarding in the long run. IMO, etc. If there's no resource management, then everything quickly boils down to a limited set of optimal choices for every situation. I find that boring to play. I couldn't conceive of playing a long running M&M game - I think the rules are clever, and its pretty damn fun for a once-in-a-while kinda thing, but the complete disconnect from any sort of realism just isn't my cup of tea.

I'm sorry, but you find that M&M isn't sufficiently realistic to known superhero physics? Is that your complaint?

 

[Voadam]

A commoner with a crossbow and a wand of fireballs, I guess.

Yes, either wizards are turned into commoners with crossbows which is not their magic schtick or at mid-high levels they can get an item to add nonrenewable resources to their resource management so that it is more like if they actually could do something each round on their own.

Fireball (5th) 11,250 gp

I'd prefer wizards to be able to do magic each round on their own more like a warlock rather than be a character with a few one shots who then turn into poor crossbowmen (non magical warlocks with inappropriate flavor feel) or depend on specific magic items to end up becoming warlock-like.

My two wizard pcs have two wands between them, one (5th level wizard) has a wand of grease to have something useful to do every round in combat regardless of his prepared spells, and the second (15th level eldritch knight) has a wand of reflexive disguise he just got as loot after an adventure where he lost all his gear. He had to do a lot of spell buff, go after the bad guys, then retreat and rest. Less than 10 minutes of activity a day in his hit and run then rest campaign against the bad guys who took his stuff. After his spells ran out he was down to improved unarmed strike as his options and teleported out before things got ugly. Among the items he lost were a wand of lightning bolts and a wand of knock.

Wands can cover the role a little after the initial levels for wizards, but I'd still prefer warlock type mechanics.

 

[Gold Roger]

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.

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.


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.

 

[Mallus]

First they dumbed down my MMORPGs to cater to the 'I have to be the center of attention ADHD set', now they are coming for my pen and paper RPGs too.

What happened to MMORPG's was that some smart folks figured out that making them less time-intensive resulted in a wider audience. More players having more fun. Describing that as 'dumbing down' misses the point. It's about a better return on your average player's time investment.

A (single) recreational activity that pratically demands an investment of time equal to working another full-time job (or caring for a few extra young children) per week for several months before it's rewarding is a questionable use of many peoples free time.

If there's no resource management, then everything quickly boils down to a limited set of optimal choices for every situation.

That reflects a playstyle preference. It has nothing to do with resource management. It has to do with how challenges and the corresponding abilities used to overcome them are quantified in the game's mechanics (a rigid modelling system -rules are the physics of the game world- vs. a looser modelling system -character are free to attempt actions not governed by procedural rules as long as the results can be adequately described in game terms).

And doesn't a limited ressource pool encourage the hunt for a small set of 'optimal choices'? Wouldn't more/unlimited resources make players less hesistant to use them in different and, assumedly, more creative ways?

I couldn't conceive of playing a long running M&M game - I think the rules are clever, and its pretty damn fun for a once-in-a-while kinda thing, but the complete disconnect from any sort of realism just isn't my cup of tea.

M&M is a lot of fun, but as you say, not everyone's cup of tea. However...

...why is ability to conjure a conjure a ball of explosive fire out thin air 3 times a day any more "realistic" than being able to do so once every six seconds? Last I checked both fell under the heading 'completely impossible'.

Neither D&D nor M&M are realistic. Maybe you just don't like characters in tights?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I dunno. I've thought of this before, myself ... for one of those experimental games.

If it's about "Resource Management" ... and if the real meaning-making division of the game day is the encounter ... why not just measure resources per encounter.

And what are resources other than "the limit to the cool things you can do"?

So, boil it down to ONE RESOURCE ... a resource that returns at the end of every encounter. And call it Mojo.

High adventure, low rules sort of game where everything you do ... get hurt, cast a spell, use a skill, etc etc, uses up some amount of your "Mojo". Out of mojo, out of the game.

--fje

Sounds a lot like Wushu, actually.

Maybe a little rules-heavy for Wushu fans, though.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

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.

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.

 

[3catcircus]

I'm of the opinion that wisely managing your resources *has* to be part of the game. When you run out of, for example, magic missile spells, but still have grease memorized, then you are still capable of being effective - just not the same way.

Likewise, if I run out of potions of cure lt. wounds, then maybe the party druid best get busy earning his keep by scavenging for healing herbs...

I like to use the tagline from the movie "Heartbreak Ridge." "Improvise, Adapt, Overcome."

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Yes, hitting autoattack and going to the kitchen was much better than requiring players of an MMORPG to actually play the game.


I'm sorry, but you find that M&M isn't sufficiently realistic to known superhero physics? Is that your complaint?

Heh...my EQ namesake was a bard. I've yet to find *anything* in any subsequent MMORPG that required the level of concentration necessary to twist four songs

No, I'm saying I don't find the superhero genre in general sufficiently realistic to interest me for long periods.