Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Celebrim]

The system now, if you have a spell caster in the party, is geared around the camping in the dungeon and "one a day" system...After every combat, spellcasters are constantly asked by party members how many spells they have for the game...Suddenly we break from the role playing game to a euro accounting game. In order for a spellcaster to be prepared for the next encounter, they have to rest, they are the only class that has to rest...When and d first came about, there wasn't a lot of thought put into all the nuts and bolts...(though in lotr they set up camp... and had large parties to protect the camp site)...I think the 9 to 9 :15 analolgy really gave a good example of the flaws

Err....No. Just, "No.", all around. This is just wrong in about every way it can be wrong.

 

[Celebrim]

Most of what he does is based on author's fiat, and there's nothing sensible IMO to be gleaned from his character's capabilities.

Most? It's a novel. Everything he does is author fiat.

 

[Celebrim]

Mostly because it interferes a lot less with the "speed" at which you want your adventure to move.

I've granted this before. It does make adventure design easier if you don't have to worry (as much) about operational balance. Each encounter in a 'per encounter' system can basically stand on its own. There are however downsides to that as well.

It's never that you can watch a movie and say "Oh, that were 6 fights Bruce Willis had this day, I guess he will need some sleep now". And often enough, people in stories go on even if tired, and they prevail (and usually not by constanly missing their targets with a crossbow, as a D&D wizard would do when he is "tired". Gandalf might rarely cast spells, but when he fights with his sword and staff, he is _effective_.)

This is because characters in stories are not subject to limitations. They are not subject to rules. Characters in stories have the 'power of plot', and they can do anything without regard to whether it is gameable, systematic, or anything else. It just happens because the author wants it to happen.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Err....No. Just, "No.", all around. This is just wrong in about every way it can be wrong.

Care to elucidate?

'Cause from where I'm sitting, you're just saying "uh-uh!" with your hands over your ears, and aren't adding much to the discussion.

Also, from much, much personal experience (playing wizards, clerics, and non-spellcasters), he's largely correct. The party retreats from the dungeon and rests when the cleric (and, to a slightly lesser extent, the wizard) runs out of juice.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This is because characters in stories are not subject to limitations.

.. and, therefore, if you want a session of D&D to play out like a chapter of Lord of the Rings, you're doing it wrong.

Eh?

 

[gizmo33]

Lets break down the system a bit.

I disagree with virtually everything you say in this post. Here are some highlights:

The system now, if you have a spell caster in the party, is geared around the camping in the dungeon and "one a day" system.

This isn't "breaking it down". This AFAICT is assuming the very thing that is debateable.

If the spellcaster decides to be active, they have to cast spells.

Yes, by itself this is not a problem. Nor does a per-day resource design prevent you from having some per-encounter stuff available. Also, I think the focus on earlier editions was on the "strategic level". No doing something important in 3E in a given melee round is a big deal since rounds take about 10x as long to resolve in 3E than they did in earlier editions. Thus, I do think that some per-encounter stuff for wizards makes sense.

Suddenly we break from the role playing game to a euro accounting game.

This is overstated. IMO virtually every aspect of the game involves some sort of accounting. You don't even know what you hit bonus is without accounting. As soon as you take damage you're accounting. Basically I don't recognize what you're saying here as applying to DnD. The accounting aspect of the game is something that I would think most people are constantly aware of - just ask anyone who's learning to play the game.

In order for a spellcaster to be prepared for the next encounter, they have to rest, they are the only class that has to rest.

Only because of healing magic, if the fighters are low in hitpoints they'll have to rest as well. IMC that's not uncommon.

Because of this, we had to have another bad invention, the wandering monster. The biggest time waster in a game is the combat invented to pester the party while they are resting in the dungeon to show the pcs that the dungeon is dangerous.

If I hit myself in the head with a shovel while trying to dig a hole, that does not make the shovel a bad invention. You're talking about bad/boring encounters and suggesting that they are the rule or somehow made inevitable by the rules.

When and d first came about, there wasn't a lot of thought put into all the nuts and bolts. Sleeping in a Dungeon made since (though in lotr they set up camp... and had large parties to protect the camp site, much different than the 3 people rest and one person watch system in dungeons and dragons.

Camping in DnD would be more fun if there were 6 PCs instead of 4?

I think the 9 to 9 :15 analolgy really gave a good example of the flaws. It just doesn't take that long to explore a dungeon, and if the reason for you exploring that dungeon is dire enough, u probaby don't want to be wasting time on the job.

I can barely follow this because of the grammar. If there is a pressing need to complete the dungeon in a timely fashion then the players will have to proceed and not rest. If, as a DM, I've designed the dungeon with such a constraint, and made it out of 100 encounters of EL 10 for a 10th level party then the party is going to die. This is no different in it's basic calculation for not sending a CR 20 monster against a 2nd level party. Maybe DnD should remove character levels as well. After all, it's cramping my style if my beginning character can't kill Darth Vader in his first outing - that's just as much of an arbitrary limitation, isn't it?

 

[gizmo33]

Most? It's a novel. Everything he does is author fiat.

I'm assuming there are some cases where an author has to conform to a back story or some other structure not of his choosing. A shared world setup, liscensed characters, that sort of thing. I find "everything" to be an overstatement, but the distinction is probably unecessary for the point we're making.

 

[Celebrim]

Care to elucidate?

*sigh*

Fine. From where I'm sitting, spouting a bunch of nonsense doesn't add to the discussion either. But, point by point.

"The system now, if you have a spell caster in the party..."

It doesn't matter if you have a spell-caster in the party. The Vancian system contributes to the problem, but the heart of the problem is ablative hit points.

"...is geared around the camping in the dungeon"

It may assume resting somewhere, but it doesn't have to be 'the dungeon', not that there is anything wrong with resting 'in the dungeon' since it happens in Burroughs, Tolkien, etc.

"and "one a day" system""

In all three editions of the game thus far, the assumption was that any single balanced encounter was unlikely to penetrate the characters hit points, and that until a characters hit points are worn down below the expected damage for attacks there wasn't a significant threat to the character. At that point, it was then necessary to find a safe place to rest or risk a proactive attack by the inhabitants of the dungeon (simulated in early on by the 'wandering monster' mechanic, and later by expressedly proactive villains like Strahd). It doesn't matter if you have spell casters or not, the optimal strategy of the game is then to not enter combat with less than your full hit point resources. Hense, in every edition there was a tendency for skilled players to do hit and run attacks, and pull back before they became seriously threatened (whether out of spells or not).

For example, as a PC in KotB, we ran these sort of hit and run attacks on the CavesOfChaos, often (especially early on) retreating and resting in the keep for several days before returning and whittling on the inhabitants some more. We did this because we were running out of hit points, not because the spell-casters were running out of or out of spells, because at that point neither the cleric nor the M-U's spells per day were that significant of a resource. To a lesser extent, we used the same tactics against 'FToT' and 'LCoT'. Yes, at higher levels, 'Out of Spells' was a bigger deal, but mostly it was 'running out of hitpoints' that would be the major prompt. It was always best to retreat while you were still 'safe' and could if necessary survive a nightly wandering encounter. Nothing about 4e suggests that that is changing. So long as ANY resources are 'per day', even if its just hit points (although it will be at least hit points and 20% of a chararters 'ooomf'), the game will still gravitate to that.

"...After every combat, spellcasters are constantly asked by party members how many spells they have for the game..."

Really? In coming on 30 years of gaming, I don't think I can recall anyone ever saying, "How many spells do you have left?" I can recall people announcing that they were running out of hitpoints and I can recall people announcing that they were running out of spells, but I don't recall my games getting disrupted by this prevasive worry you describe.

"Suddenly we break from the role playing game to a euro accounting game."

How so? I think this is basicly just trying to make something sound bad. How more so that keeping track of hit points, ammunition, food, and anything else that you have to keep track of? You might as well say, "Suddenly we break from a war game to a euro accounting game." (whatever that means), or heck, since real war is mostly logistics, "Suddenly we break from war to a euro accounting game."

"In order for a spellcaster to be prepared for the next encounter, they have to rest, they are the only class that has to rest.."

Because you've never rested to recover hit points? Because no one else is likely to have per day magic items?

"When and d first came about, there wasn't a lot of thought put into all the nuts and bolts..."

This is a variation on "people used to be stupid but then we got smarter". I'm continually impressed by how much thought was put into the 1e edition rules. They may have been organic and clunky, but alot of thought went into them and a whole lot of practical experience with the rules long before they ever even saw print.

"though in lotr they set up camp... and had large parties to protect the camp site)..."

Because you know, Frodo, Sam, and Gollum never had to set up camp, or rest in the dungeon, and if they did they consituted a large party (two hobbits and a traitor, you know.

"I think the 9 to 9 :15 analolgy really gave a good example of the flaws..."

And I think it is an utterly spurious justification for 'per encounter' abilities. There may be some good justification with balancing, pacing, or what not. But solving the 15 minute adventuring day - a problem which is often exagerrated anyway - it will not. At least, not after the newness wears off.

 

[pemerton]

Per encounter abilities make very little sense OTHER than as a completely metagame mechanic. How you explain that fluff-wise is beyond me.

<snip>

"I'm sorry, I can't Whirlwind Attack these Trolls. If we run away and then re-encounter them a few minutes later, though, I'll be able to."

Remember, all 3 martial classes written so far in 3e which have per encounter abilities have some way to refresh them during the encounter. The Crusader does it automatically on a round by round basis. The Swordsage spends a round mentally preparing himself. And the Warblade spends a round attacking normally. All three of these make sense within the description of each character class.

Psionic focus is another example like Cadfan's. For non-mentalist/ki-power types, exhaustion seems to work well enough: I can't whirlwind attack again without resting for a round.

An all-encounter-resources set-up interferes with the speed at which I want the adventure to move because it actually imposes no sensible restrictions on it. PCs can begin the adventure as farm boys, blow up the deathstar, kill vader, and party with ewoks and still have time for lunch (which they won't eat because that would interfere with the speed at which the DM wants the adventure to move).

<snip>

I don't understand at all how you're going to stop PCs from killing things and levelling up 24-7 other than heavy-handed DM fiat ("you just rest, don't ask why!")

<snip>

But in an all-encounter-resources situation, the idea of standing around and resting/drinking mead when you could be killing bad guys instead would make no sense at all.

<snip>

IME players will do everything with their characters that they can possibly do. If you remove a restriction like fatigue, or it's equivalent, from the game then I think it would produce some ridiculous results.

Resting might result from the players choosing to have their PCs rest. In my experience, players will happily stand around and drink mead instead of killing bad guys, if they have a reason (in character) to do so, or if (as a player) they think it makes (plot or thematic) sense for their PC to do so. There need not be a mechanical incentive.

 

[Mallus]

IOW, like many of the vocal minority...

Seeing as neither of us have any actual data on whose preferences are in the majority, let's drop this, ok?

...you don't actually like D&D, and see nothing of the charms that made it the industry leader for 30 years.

Oy vey.

RC, let me try and explain where I'm coming from. I do, in fact, like D&D. I started playing it around 22 years ago, in a 1e AD&D campaign that sported a homemade spell point system (no memorization/Vancian magic), the crit tables from Arms Law, the non-weapon proficiencies from the wilderness guide book, which I think was the first full-fledged skill system in D&D, plus a whole lot of optional material from the Dragon and White Dwarf and a slew of cottage press supplements.

That was D&D.

During college and then for years after I played in a quasi-medieval 1.75e (AD&D + Unearthed Arcana + limited 2e materials) campaign that eventually turned into a high-magictech game complete w/spell-powered fighter planes.

That was D&D, too.

Currently I run a kitbashed mix of 3.5 (with a surprising number of options turned on) and Monte's Arcana Evolved, with a lot of homemade setting-based changes. Mechanically, it's a vastly different game.

It's still D&D.

When you talk about my seeing "none of it's charms", I have to wonder which "it" are you talking about; OD&D, AD&D, Rules Cyclopedia, 2nd Edition, 2nd Edition + Skills and Powers, 3rd/3.5? I've got news for you; over the past 30 years there have been several different games have been sold under the brand name "D&D". Sure, they bear some similarity to one another, but when you compare basic AD&D --or OD&D-- to late-era 3.5, it's hard for me to see them as the same game.

And yet they're still all D&D. Frankly, none of the proposed changes for 4e look more radical than the ones between 2e and 3e. D&D has endured significant changes in it's basic mechanics multiple times over the past 30 years, and the prevailing wisdom, at least around here, is that the game's gotten stronger.

However, you want to play the game that bears that name.

We've all --even diaglo-- been doing that for 30+ years, why stop now?

So you hope that they make the industry leader more like something gathering dust on hobby store shelves.

I hope they improve the industry leader. As do you. We disagree on how to accomplish it.

About right?

At some level you must realize that people with different opinions about D&D like the game as much as or more than you do, right? You're a smart guy, you should recognize this.