Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[hong]

Um, you're suggesting a problem where one doesn't exist. If, using the rules as there appear does not stop me and other DMs from creating fun and interesting encounters, the problem then cannot exist in the rules. No, logically, if the rules are apparently not at fault (as they obviously don't impede everyone's ability), then it must be in the ability (or lack thereof) to use those rules properly.

If the rules do not impede some people's ability to have fun, that is because those people have reified the rules limitations into desirable features, or warts to be worked around.

Nice, but let me put my own words in my mouth, thank you. "Good play" doesn't involve novaing or refusing to manges one's resources--thus not necessitating the use of rope trick, teleport, or whatever else after each encounter.

Assuming that "manage one's resources" is a necessary component of "good play" is begging the question. In fact, I've listed several reasons why it's antithetical to what might be considered good play by an external observer, meaning one who is not aware of the 30 years of rationalisations surrounding the attritional approach.

 

[Azzy]

Yes there is, because it means not using your most spectacular and interesting powers for the purpose of kicking of butt. Which is stupid, when the whole point of having fights in the game is to kick butt. That's not to say that one cannot play a game without opportunities to promulgate violence, but such a game is almost but not quite totally unlike D&D.

May the mods forgive my analogy, but it's quite apt.

Similarly, the point of sex is reaching an orgasm. However, if you do that right from the start, you're likely to find that it's a less than satisfying experience. For you, and the other party or parties involved.

Also, you'll note that in most stories (books, movies, whatever) that the most powerful abilities are rarely--if ever--used up front. That's because it would get boring and repetitive real quick.

 

[hong]

So if encounters are only "fun and interesting in their own right" if the deplete the party's ressourced almost completly,

"Fun and interesting in their own right" does not mean "deplete the party's resources almost completely". It means "face enemies that require tactical thought and use of nontrivial abilities to defeat". It just so happens that "nontrivial abilities" in 3E are almost all limited in their number of uses per day, but this does not have to be the case in 4E.

then their will be no change to the 15-minute-day in 4e because an encounter can only be "fun and interesting in it's own right" if it depletes almost all of the party's healing surge (as obviously if you have still plenty of healing surges left the encounter couldn't have been "fun and interesting in it's own right")

If an encounter is massive enough to take multiple people to zero multiple times, then the fun quota for the day has been met, and it's time to bask in the afterglow.

Sure, that's why 3.x D&D is the least popular RPG ever with the lowest number of players. Hm, wait a moment, there's something wrong with that statement

D&D is the most popular p&p RPG in spite of this antiquated approach to combat, not because of it. Evidence: every other fantasy RPG, p&p or computer, does something else. This includes franchises that are ten times more popular than D&D.

 

[Azzy]

If the rules do not impede some people's ability to have fun, that is because those people have reified the rules limitations into desirable features, or warts to be worked around.

Well, using "as is" isn't working around "worts." Considering that a more interesting and cinematic experience with actual consequences for action is desirable, I can't argue that.

Assuming that "manage one's resources" is a necessary component of "good play" is begging the question. In fact, I've listed several reasons why it's antithetical to what might be considered good play by an external observer, meaning one who is not aware of the 30 years of rationalisations surrounding the attritional approach.

Actually, your reasons seem to be more antithetical to fun, interesting or even cinematic flair.

 

[Maggan]

Well, if the players metagame by using rope (and other stupid) tricks

Since when did using a spell become metagaming?

/M

 

[hong]

May the mods forgive my analogy, but it's quite apt.

Similarly, the point of sex is reaching an orgasm.

You're new here, aren't you?

However, if you do that right from the start, you're likely to find that it's a less than satisfying experience. For you, and the other party or parties involved.

Yes. You've hit on the problem of per-encounter combat intensity management, which unfortunately has nothing to do with between-encounter adventure pacing.

Also, you'll note that in most stories (books, movies, whatever) that the most powerful abilities are rarely--if ever--used up front. That's because it would get boring and repetitive real quick.

This is because the most powerful enemies are the ones that are faced last. In 4E, if you want the most dangerous fight to be the one at the end, you put the most dangerous enemies at the end. You do not use 4 sets of identical enemies and let attrition do the job for you.

 

[Maggan]

"Good play" doesn't involve novaing or refusing to manges one's resources--thus not necessitating the use of rope trick, teleport, or whatever else after each encounter.

Using Teleport or Rope Trick is not "refusing to manage one's resources". It is one way of managing your resources, using the resources (in this case, spells) available in the game to make sure that the party's resources are at their maximum at any given time.

So basically, by not using Rope Trick or Teleport when it is possible, a party is by definition not managing their resources optimally for the survival of the party.

There are ways around this, of course, but just saying that DM's has to learn "pacing" is not likely to solve the problem for everyone.

/M

 

[Azzy]

"Fun and interesting in their own right" does not mean "deplete the party's resources almost completely". It means "face enemies that require tactical thought and use of nontrivial abilities to defeat". It just so happens that "nontrivial abilities" in 3E are almost all limited in their number of uses per day, but this does not have to be the case in 4E.

Going nova is not tactical in the slightest. It's pretty much the opposite.

If an encounter is massive enough to take multiple people to zero multiple times, then the fun quota for the day has been met, and it's time to bask in the afterglow.

You only get to enjoy the afterglow if you worked for. Otherwise, you get kicked out of bed.

D&D is the most popular p&p RPG in spite of this antiquated approach to combat, not because of it. Evidence: every other fantasy RPG, p&p or computer, does something else. This includes franchises that are ten times more popular than D&D.

And yet a good portion of them include resource management to varying degrees (4e included).

 

[hong]

Well, using "as is" isn't working around "worts." Considering that a more interesting and cinematic experience with actual consequences for action is desirable, I can't argue that.

If you SCREW UP during a fight, you DIE. Seems like an "actual consequence" to me.

Actually, your reasons seem to be more antithetical to fun, interesting or even cinematic flair.

And if so, this is because of the presence of the 4 encounters/day paradigm. Hence, get rid of the paradigm.

 

[see]

Yes Rope Trick. The moment the dungeon suddenly starts teeming with monsters who can see the invisible, where there before had been none, that's the moment the DM gets a book in the head.

Having something backfire spectacularly on occasion is not the same as the dungeon teeming with creatures that can see the invisible. If you're high enough level to cast rope trick, you're high enough level to cast invisibility; it's not unreasonable for some of your opponents to be prepared to deal with the invisible.

But, going back to the original issue, and why it's in this topic at all, it was claimed that 3.x needed radical revision to end the "fifteen-minute adventuring day", and a backwards-compatible Pathfinder couldn't fix that. Assuming we grant that rope trick makes it impossible to prevent players from engaging in the fifteen-minute adventuring day, the "fix" in a Pathfinder RPG could be as simple as eliminating rope trick from the game, or making the 3'x5' window detectable on a DC20 spot check like a scrying sensor, or the like, without seriously impacting backwards compatibility.

Now, if your objection isn't that the "fifteen-minute adventuring day" is insoluble, but that non-rollercoaster play is boring, well, yeah, that would require more serious revision. But that's well over in de gustibus non est disputandum territory, just like my objections to, oh, 4e warlocks, 4e tieflings, 4e's planes . . .