Idea on keeping Vancian casters from novaing

[Herschel]

But the giving options part means the default ignores what you want and adds those options later because it's playstyle neutral. That may mean, in your example, no teleporting in the core system.

In other words, the best way to design a system as described is with add-ons, not requiring the DM to go through with a marker like he's edition a book or grading a paper.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem I see with this equation is that while both the wizard and the cleric refreshes all their spells with a rest, the 15 hp fighter doesn't refresh his 15 hps (unless with items or the cleric's spell slots) with his rest. The spell to hp ratio is actually lower than 5 and 7, especially since the fighter dies at 0 hp.

With this lower effective hp:spell ratio two things happen. One is that the party preferably expends their spells instead of hp because it refreshes more quickly. The second is that the casters runs out of spells when the fighter is at half or three-quarters hp. People would look at the high hps of the party and be under the illusion that they're still good to go when in reality they are out of out of the big guns that prevents massive hp loss.

Not if it is designed right.

For example, my home brew RPG is designed so that a 4 man 1st level party doing a normal adventure will face dangers that takes 80 points of damage to defeat and deals 60 points of damage. Harder adventures deal an take more. This is accounting for all or nothing attacks,, AOE, traps, hazards, and whatever. So players know they don't need to nova unless the situation calls for it (bad luck, bosses, excess resources).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It is a problem only in certain systems, ergo it's a system problem.

It is, however, one easily solved through playstyle _solutions_.

This is well-put.

The FMAD, to me, sits in the same boat (or, at least, in the same flotilla) as "caster dominance" does. There are numerous people, because they have already adjusted their playstyles, who never encounter the issue (e.g., gentlemen's metagame agreements at the table, prefer blasty-wizards, etc.).

However, for those who have not adjusted their playstyles, it is a particularly thorny issue.

The question, then, is "is it better to adjust the system, such that it matches the playstyles of those who don't have the issue, or give advice on adjusting your playstyle?"

I, obviously, prefer the first - I'd rather there be systems in place that everyone can read and agree to which obviate the problems from the get-go, rather than saying, "Here's all these neat abilities; if you don't want to make the fighters feel useless, then don't use them, except in the following circumstances ..." or something similar.

 

[Harlock]

This is well-put.

The FMAD, to me, sits in the same boat (or, at least, in the same flotilla) as "caster dominance" does. There are numerous people, because they have already adjusted their playstyles, who never encounter the issue (e.g., gentlemen's metagame agreements at the table, prefer blasty-wizards, etc.).

However, for those who have not adjusted their playstyles, it is a particularly thorny issue.

The question, then, is "is it better to adjust the system, such that it matches the playstyles of those who don't have the issue, or give advice on adjusting your playstyle?"

I, obviously, prefer the first - I'd rather there be systems in place that everyone can read and agree to which obviate the problems from the get-go, rather than saying, "Here's all these neat abilities; if you don't want to make the fighters feel useless, then don't use them, except in the following circumstances ..." or something similar.

Should I bother pointing out that Wandering Monster Tables are part of a system?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Should I bother pointing out that Wandering Monster Tables are part of a system?

Sure - but, for the reasons posted, I don't believe that they're a good solution to the FMAD (they just move up the point at which you stop, because it's better to face a wandering monster at 70% resources then at 20% resource).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It is a problem only in certain systems, ergo it's a system problem.

It is, however, one easily solved through playstyle _solutions_.

I have never seen it in play, but I have heard about it in nearly every system, ergo, it is a playstyle problem.

It is, however, something that may be more prevalent in certain systems.

(And no, I'm not mocking you or making a rhetorical point- that is my actual gaming experience.)

 

[Harlock]

Sure - but, for the reasons posted, I don't believe that they're a good solution to the FMAD (they just move up the point at which you stop, because it's better to face a wandering monster at 70% resources then at 20% resource).

At which point, as a DM, you can either make a suggestion and point out they can probably make it another encounter, or another inhabitant of the adventure (the 4 kobolds from room 12, for instance) decide to patrol, or trade their shift with the next four kobolds. In a dynamic game world, lots of things can happen. I suppose we simply disagree that there is a problem here in the first place. I'll leave you alone now, promise.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

At which point, as a DM, you can either make a suggestion and point out they can probably make it another encounter,

To which the players respond, "Well, sure, but what if we roll badly and need to spend extra stuff and then while we're resting from that one a wandering monster attacks? Safer just to rest now."

Now, the DM has an option: he can metagame more extensively "No, seriously, guys - no wandering monster rolls if you keep going, I promise;" or, he can let the chips fall where they may.

I think the first option is ... undesirable, because I'd rather the system account for it such that the DM doesn't have to do this, while the second one hasn't addressed the issue.

I'll leave you alone now, promise.

Heh - you aren't bothering me.

 

[keterys]

I have never seen it in play, but I have heard about it in nearly every system

*scratches his head* I can't even imagine how it would happen in about half of the RPGs out there.

Especially if you look at non-fantasy games and games that weren't D&D derivative (a surprisingly tough restriction, I realize).

 

[haakon1]

The power level of a daily caster is directly proportional to how many combats the party is expected to face between rests, and that number changes depending on the group and the DM.
. . .
So the PROBLEM is that in each of these groups, the wizard's power level is vastly different. Bob's wizard is overpowered, your wizard is probably appropriate to the character level, and Gary's is underpowered.

So either you have to tell Bob and Gary that they're doing it wrong (badwrongfun), or you have to adjust the game mechanics to encourage (or force) casters to spread out their spells an appropriate amount.

Alternative solution to this "problem": You could not worry about what happens in campaigns you aren't in.

Is it a really a problem that some people run harder campaigns and some run easier campaigns? Is it wrongbadfun if I want to sometimes allow the players to set the pace, and other times put them in a time-bound situation where they can't set the pace? If I think it's fun to have resource management challenges like limited spell casting, encumbrance rules, and ammo counting in my game?

It seems like the bar for arguing "everyone must always conform to my vision of the appropriate number of encounters per pay" should be really high.