New Design Paradigms - What are they and are they good or bad?

[Doghead Thirteen]

What is the precedence for when the rules come into conflict? Does rule 1 or rule 3 reign supreme? Or is it a RPS thing?

Rule 3 is probably the most important; to my view, fun is the entire point of roleplaying. The idea behind rule 1 is that if a bunch of somewhat drunk people (several of whom are dyslexic) can coherently understand and adhere to the rules, then the game system is simple enough.

Simplicity is important because it stops the rules getting in the way of the part we really enjoy. Character development, interaction with NPC's and advancement of the plot are, to us, a lot more important than rolling buckets of dice. Don't mistake simplicity for lack of depth - several friends have described our character generation rules as some of the most flexible they've seen.

I can only speak for myself, but I play these games to immerse myself in a world without the limitations and constraints of my day-to-day life. Having to deal with artificial constraints or breaks in the action to roll buckets of dice would defeat the purpose, so the more fluid and fast-moving the game system, the better.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I can generally get behind both of those new paradigms, but there is a danger in the "per encounter" balance.

You have to be able to model "rising tension" and the slow attrition of resources.

You can't simply have every encounter return the PCs to their baseline, or you will water down the dramatic tension in your game.

Solve that problem, and I am totally behind the per encounter rebalance.

 

[Lanefan]

1. There are no dead levels. Every level improves *something*...hit points if nothing else, and skills in 3e...and if something else doesn't improve now you're measurably closer to when it'll improve later.

That said, there are certainly opportunities in the various class tables to smooth thngs out...instead of having 2 saves types improve at one level and none the next, split it so one type goes up with each level. And, at places where the linear progression of things produces a big jump (e.g. getting 2 new feats at one level), again tweak the tables to smooth the progression out...give one of those feats a level early, for example.

2. Per-encounter "balancing" (better defined as per-encounter reset) is a complete non-starter for me. Others here have already pointed out why, but one thing bears repeating: the party has to be able to be weakened and *cannot* expect to go into every encounter at full pop unless they rest each time...and there's many ways of discouraging that!

Lanefan

 

[Vocenoctum]

Oboy. This whole 'dead levels' thing is one of the big things that made me ditch a level system... brrr.

The idea of a character advancement that basically doesn't do anything is completely alien to my roleplaying experience. It would be Ground Zero for some house rules.

I disagree, simply because point systems have the same dead-levels in a differnet manner. In Shadowrun, if I needed to save for 3 adventures to raise my Body, there's still dead time. It's not identical to dead levels of course, but it's not like every "level" brings something new & interesting in any system I've played.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I can generally get behind both of those new paradigms, but there is a danger in the "per encounter" balance.

You have to be able to model "rising tension" and the slow attrition of resources.

You can't simply have every encounter return the PCs to their baseline, or you will water down the dramatic tension in your game.

Solve that problem, and I am totally behind the per encounter rebalance.

The problem I have with conventional Per Day stuff is the CRPG method of "fight fight fight, rest, fight fight fight, rest". Players tend to think they can rest anywhere after the fire off all their powers in every fight, and when you assure them that they can't, they think the DM is punishing them.

I agree that Per Encounter balancing can go too far, I like Reserve Feats that allow the caster to make a choice. Nine Swords might be too much. (Don't have Scoundrel yet, so can't say there.) There are plenty of constant use abilities that are restricted without making them Per Encounter or Per Day and something like that is probably a better system. (Rogues don't have a daily limit on Sneak Attacks for example.)

As for rationalizing the Per Encounter stuff, it's not a big deal. Guild Wars has "adrenaline" powers that are effectively per encounter, but no problem.

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

I disagree, simply because point systems have the same dead-levels in a differnet manner. In Shadowrun, if I needed to save for 3 adventures to raise my Body, there's still dead time. It's not identical to dead levels of course, but it's not like every "level" brings something new & interesting in any system I've played.

I use a triple-pronged system.

Firstly, there's the points-based part. It's functionally similar to that used in Shadowrun, World of Darkness ETC. This gives the players a lot of control over what direction they take their character's abilities, which is always good. It also lets players diverge into areas a class / level system wouldn't allow. Our characters tend to be jacks-of-all-trades, but then, over-specialise and you breed in weakness.

Secondly, at the end of each session I arbitrarily raise one skill for each PC, that being the skill they either used most, did the most spectacular job with, used in an unexpected way, whatever.

And last but definitely not least, each 'episode' of our campaign takes place a good span of time apart. Like, a week or two, maybe as much as three or four months. An 'episode' consists of a single adventure / mission / whatever you want to call it, not necessarily a single gaming session, and it's quite possible to cram two or three into a session if we get onto a real role. The point being, during that 'downtime' between jobs, the characters are doing things - training, doing their day-to-day job, whatever.
And that raises appropriate skills and stats.

It works pretty well for us.

 

[BryonD]

The problem I have with conventional Per Day stuff is the CRPG method of "fight fight fight, rest, fight fight fight, rest". Players tend to think they can rest anywhere after the fire off all their powers in every fight, and when you assure them that they can't, they think the DM is punishing them.

I think this is an issue that should be handled between the players and not between the covers of a book.

Honestly, if the players will complain about a DM punishing them for not allowing free rest any time, then they will just not play a rule set that goes against it.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I think this is an issue that should be handled between the players and not between the covers of a book.

Honestly, if the players will complain about a DM punishing them for not allowing free rest any time, then they will just not play a rule set that goes against it.

There are many different ways to address the issue, but the simple matter is that if the Wizard blows through all his spells and you've got 10 more encounters before they can leave, he's going to die or be useless with his crossbow. Encounter planning, adjusting to the players, adjusting the players, or giving them options for something Per Encounter instead of Per Day can all be included in the system without removing the Per Day material already present.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I can generally get behind both of those new paradigms, but there is a danger in the "per encounter" balance.

You have to be able to model "rising tension" and the slow attrition of resources.

You can't simply have every encounter return the PCs to their baseline, or you will water down the dramatic tension in your game.

Solve that problem, and I am totally behind the per encounter rebalance.

I'm a fan of the idea of "per-encounter" balancing. It really helps in level design; an EL9 encounter could be a cake-walk for a rested party, and a TPK for a party that pushed one room too far. The current mechanic encourages ultra-cautious play and regular retreats; the game actively discourages long, grueling expeditions.

I just hate it when the party wakes up, goes to the dungeon, gets in three fights, and has to retreat for the "day"--all before lunchtime. It's lame to imagine these supposed heroes cooped up in their little Rope Trick, twiddling thumbs for 20 hours. Lame!

Perhaps a reasonable replacement is to refresh certain combat abilities between encounters, but limit the number of times a character can be healed. Like, "A character can receive a number of points of healing per day equal to 12+con bonus x level. After that, his body has suffered too much shock and any further healing spells do not function."

Make HPs the precious resource.

Going off that, perhaps use something similar to the existing spell system, but give casters who have run out of spells/day the option of burning HPs to power spells. And use reserve feats to give them the option of doing something during a round, even if they don't want to burn a spell slot.

 

[iwatt]

Make HPs the precious resource.

Ah, you mean like Iron Heroes.

All class abilities (except the Arcanist*) are based on per/encounter abilities in IH. The only limit to how much you can do in a day is HPs.


* Which is one of the biggest beefs with the RAW arcanist. Thankfully Mearl's erccomended using the Warlock. The True Sorcery arcanist, another very good Arcanist variant, powers spells through Non lethal damage, therfore making HPs the only non-renewable resource.