"Looks like we're going to win this battle . . . in about 90 minutes from now."

[LostSoul]

EDIT: Re Lost Soul's comments about binary win/lose: In earlier editions, the attrition model was a built-in check against binary win/lose battle conditions. So long as attrition was possible, even a relatively simple battle could have important consequences later. Thus, each round of a battle, even if you were certain that you were going to win could be important, thereby sustaining tension.

Healing surges, daily powers, and action points do this in 4e. Attrition is still there, it's just changed so it affects every PC and not just the spellcasters. (Hit points in 3.x were not part of this attrition model.)

Do they add enough tension? No, I don't think so. That's why I think the goal of an encounter shouldn't simply be "kill all the monsters." "Kill all the monsters before they sound the alarm" is cool.

On the attrition model in earlier editions: I found it annoying. It was cool if you were a Fighter trying to watch your hit points. It was annoying if you were a Wizard wondering if you should use your spells or not, and then resting with all your coolest spells uncast because you were never put in the situation where you absolutely had to cast them. Walking around with one arm tied behind your back = annoying.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I haven't experienced this yet; although, we did experience a fight that just drug out absolutely forever, but that was due to monsters splitting the party up and the party using horrid tactics (like park in a vexing cloud and eat -2 to hit for the entire fight, then ask me why you can't hit anything).

 

[Kraydak]

Healing surges, daily powers, and action points do this in 4e. Attrition is still there, it's just changed so it affects every PC and not just the spellcasters. (Hit points in 3.x were not part of this attrition model.)

Daily powers do provide some attrition. Actions points were designed to counteract attrition (bizarrely, I'm just paraphrasing the developers here, not sure I buy the claim). Healing surges... do attrition really really badly. In previous editions, the healing attrition came from the healer's spell pool, which could be shared among party members as needed. In 4e, the healing pools are character specific, and so the weakest-link rule applies: as soon as anyone runs out of healing-surges, the party has to stop.

Dailies are relatively well done attrition provider, as they are effectively a party-wide resource. Unfortunately, the large supply of non-attriting resources means that you need a significant encounter to cause any attrition at all, unlike previous editions where *every* encounter could be expected to drain some resources, so Dailies go either very fast or not at all.

The jury is still out (and will be for awhile) on whether the 1-3e design or the 4e design (attrition-wise) is superior, and there are clearly trade-offs either way. My gut feeling however is that the 1-3e design is superior: the downside of the 1-3e mindset (15 minute workday, novaing on every encounter) can be easily bypassed through metagame agreements between players and the DM and the 4e downsides (extremely narrow significant encounter power range, long boring fights) are not so easily avoided.

(But metagaming is bad you say? Not when it comes to genre/play style issues, where the benefit of everyone being on the same page is huge. Groups should be very, very clear on what kind of games they are playing. It would solve a huge number of problems.)

I do wonder if the WotC dev groups hand-waved the "mop up" portion of encounters on a frequent basis. It seems quite clear that they played almost exclusively at lower levels (with less inflated hp).

 

[apoptosis]

EDIT: Re Lost Soul's comments about binary win/lose: In earlier editions, the attrition model was a built-in check against binary win/lose battle conditions. So long as attrition was possible, even a relatively simple battle could have important consequences later. Thus, each round of a battle, even if you were certain that you were going to win could be important, thereby sustaining tension.

I do want to give you your kudos in that that you actually mentioned this might be an issue a long long time ago in a thread about managing resources in 4E.

Now whether this is a big issue to most groups, i cannot say but just wanted to bring up that you had predicted this potential issue.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I do wonder if the WotC dev groups hand-waved the "mop up" portion of encounters on a frequent basis. It seems quite clear that they played almost exclusively at lower levels (with less inflated hp).

It is possible that they have "hidden" the mop-up ability in the Intimdiate skill - against bloodied foes, you can use it to force them to give up.

But I am not so sure yet if mopping up happens that often. But well, I've had what - 8-10 encounters so far? That's hardly conclusive for anything.

I do want to give you your kudos in that that you actually mentioned this might be an issue a long long time ago in a thread about managing resources in 4E.

Now whether this is a big issue to most groups, i cannot say but just wanted to bring up that you had predicted this potential issue.

Ah... good times. I still remember that discussion as if it was yesterday...

But Healing Surges are daily attrition, and most encounters are won only if you spend some during combat. They are something that hit points in 3E didn't do any more, once people figured out how to operate a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.
Dailies are also similar attrition resources.

I haven't seen any convincing arguments that these are not important aspects to achieve attrition, or that attrition can really help to reduce the "mop-up" problem. It gives the mop-up lasting meaning, but it might still feel boring for the encounter at hand.

From the encounters I had so far that came close to "Mop-Up"-Fights it were, amusingly, the players that were in danger of being mopped-up. Well, it never happened, so they probably can't really count as mop-ups...

 

[apoptosis]

It is possible that they have "hidden" the mop-up ability in the Intimdiate skill - against bloodied foes, you can use it to force them to give up.

But I am not so sure yet if mopping up happens that often. But well, I've had what - 8-10 encounters so far? That's hardly conclusive for anything.



Ah... good times. I still remember that discussion as if it was yesterday...

But Healing Surges are daily attrition, and most encounters are won only if you spend some during combat. They are something that hit points in 3E didn't do any more, once people figured out how to operate a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.
Dailies are also similar attrition resources.

I haven't seen any convincing arguments that these are not important aspects to achieve attrition, or that attrition can really help to reduce the "mop-up" problem. It gives the mop-up lasting meaning, but it might still feel boring for the encounter at hand.

From the encounters I had so far that came close to "Mop-Up"-Fights it were, amusingly, the players that were in danger of being mopped-up. Well, it never happened, so they probably can't really count as mop-ups...

Would you use a healing surge though in battles where you are not threatened with actual chance of dying?

General hp attrition has this impact (which was RC's major point in that thread) that even battles which you know you will routinely win without much threat are still tension as they deprive you of resources.

 

[SmilingPiePlate]

I had a couple encounters when I DM'd where the villain's position had obviously become untenable and he fled. (In one case, the guy actually still died from a lingering effect, but he sunk to the bottom of the lake and the players thought he'd escaped...)

The players hated it, most expressing the idea that they had "failed" the encounter because there were no corpses at their feet. (This aside from any loot issues.)

Obviously it's not everyone's cup of tea, and if your players prefer battles to end with one side or the other all dead where they fought, more power to them (so long as you also like running that kind of game).


That said, it's my opinion that monsters running when the battle goes badly for them enhances rather than detracts from the experience. It can even add some excitement back into a fight that was previously a foregone conclusion, as the priority changes from "kill the enemies" to "kill the enemies before they escape and possibly come back with angry friends."

More importantly, while I'm not really a simulationist, I do like it if the DM helps foster a certain level of suspension of disbelief, and I find monsters acting in self preservation where appropriate is a part of that for me. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Cadfan]

Would you use a healing surge though in battles where you are not threatened with actual chance of dying?

Yes. Is this a serious question? If you lose hit points, you must spend healing surges to get them back. If you don't get them back, you will eventually die as you continue to fight things.

 

[apoptosis]

Yes. Is this a serious question? If you lose hit points, you must spend healing surges to get them back. If you don't get them back, you will eventually die as you continue to fight things.

Maybe I am not making this very clear.

Why would you not wait to use it when you are in a battle where you have a real chance of dying?

 

[Hussar]

And these are the *brutes*, the big-time damage dealers.

Still, the fact that nobody else seems to be experiencing what I've seen so far is good.

I think right there is a bit of an issue and I think it kinda got skipped over.

Brutes are not the "big time damage dealers". They are the meat shields. Artillery and strikers (for PC's) are the big time damage dealers. The one big shot damage guys are not the brutes. Part of the problem perhaps is not examining the roles of the monsters closely enough.

Honestly, I think the best answer so far is to simply rely on the Intimidate skill. If you've gotten to the point where the resolution is truly a forgone conclusion, then just intimidate them into giving up.

That right there would speed things along immensely.

Concur.

Wait until the shiny newness wears off, or 5e is announced, and suddenly this will be an "obvious" problem that "everyone" knew about.

It is also a problem that was predicted to arise, given the nature of changes foreshadowed by WotC. The solutions suggested here are the predicted solutions, which give rise to other problems.

Lessening the attrition element of earlier editions means that there is a smaller range of encounter power that is both "challenging" and not immediately deadly. Re-engineering 4e to include daily attrition, though, means that non-deadly encounters can still be significant overall. If 4e was OGL instead of GSL, I feel certain that a re-engineered game would be on the market within a year's time, and that it would play considerably better than 4e now does.

(My opinion, of course.)

IMHO, the designers did some really nice work, but they didn't understand the roots of all the complex problems from 3e that they wished to resolve, and thus merely "layered" some of those problems into the rules in such a way as they don't become immediately obvious. As rules mastery increases, and as the "Oooh! New! Shiny!" factor dies down, I expect that you will be hearing many more people making the same observations.


RC


EDIT: Re Lost Soul's comments about binary win/lose: In earlier editions, the attrition model was a built-in check against binary win/lose battle conditions. So long as attrition was possible, even a relatively simple battle could have important consequences later. Thus, each round of a battle, even if you were certain that you were going to win could be important, thereby sustaining tension.

I gotta ask, just because I like the punishment. Is there a particular reason your "dream game" couldn't be published under the GSL, or are you just banging this drum out of habit?