Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Reynard]

As a DM, I'd work it the same as I work "hex exploration" now, except the monstrous cavalry would show up 5 minutes later instead of 5 hours later.

Cheers, -- N

Jokes aside, maybe it is that "hex exploration" and "exploratory dungeon crawls" aren't a concern because, according to their market research, WotC doesn't believe andyone still does those things. Given that Paizo's adventure paths -- essentially a preplanned campaign going for a year, then dropped to make room for the next one -- were some of the most highly lauded projects of the last few years, they may be right.

Me? I prefer an open campaign, where anything can, and likely will, happen. Where every once in a while, the PCs can do nothing "plot" related and just explore, or do book keeping, or work on their own individual goals even though we are all still sitting around the table together having fun.

Adventure paths -- and that style of gaming in general -- bug me because I don't want to have to make sure the PCs take whatever action is necessary to validate the next chapter. I am running the 3.5 Dragonlance modules now and we're about 2 sessions from totally jumping the rails. Players do fun, wierd stuff and trying to predict where they'll be next session, let alone six months down the road, is an exercise in futility.

 

[Nifft]

Jokes aside, maybe it is that "hex exploration" and "exploratory dungeon crawls" aren't a concern because, according to their market research, WotC doesn't believe andyone still does those things.

Maybe their market research shows that they can't sell anything to the people who do those things.

I ran a random-encounter based story arc ("get from point X deep in Carceri to point Y in upper Gehenna"), and it was a lot of fun. There were two "set piece" encounters which were plot specific, but otherwise it was just roll the dice and improvise.

Why were there a bunch of Slaad on the road? PCs didn't ask.

Why was there a pilgrimage of Githzerai camped outside that cave? PCs talked to them, so they grew a reason to exist.

It was fun to DM -- but there really wouldn't have been much WotC could have sold me to help make things run easier.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Reynard]

Maybe their market research shows that they can't sell anything to the people who do those things.

Fair point.

 

[Celebrim]

Maybe their market research shows that they can't sell anything to the people who do those things.

Fair point, indeed.

It has occured to me that the biggest problem with trying to sell anything to the grognards is that they are so opinionated and diverse and self-sufficient of a group that even if there is alot of them (us) it is almost an impossible market to reach.

I really can't complain that WotC feels compelled to sell junk to the guy that I feel would buy anything rather than to me.

 

[Reynard]

I really can't complain that WotC feels compelled to sell junk to the guy that I feel would buy anything rather than to me.

It's not that, I don't think. The more I consider it, the more I think the intention is preicable profits. Both the monthly fee DI and the new core books every year thing mack of accountants trying to accurately predict the income of the game.

Which is fine and all -- I just wish they weren't so damn intent upon changing everything toward that end. While some people are all excisted about the random changes, there's a lt of people that aren't. More importantly, I don't think most of the people really excited about 4E would not be so if it was hewing coser to "traditional" D&D-isms. I understand that Vancian magic is not a really popular system -- I guess I am one of the few that like -- but I don't think it is sytemic. That is to say, I don't think that the game has to change as much as they are indicating it is just to get rid of that. Really, polls have indicated that to be one of the few big issues -- along with prep time. I don't think anyone was clamoring for Exalted-isms in D&D prior to their announcement, and I don't think anyone was asking that the death knight become a sword lich.

D&D 4E could have easily been an incemental evolution of 3E and maintained a higher percentage of the core audience, as opposed to going after a different, uncertain audience through random mechanical and fluff changes. DI and the like would still work, even with the neo-grognards like me, but their apparent dedicaion toward unneccessary change and the slaughtering of sacred cows is prohibitive for a not insignificant portion of the curent audience. Whatever size that portion is, 4E will have to make it up via new customers. Where are they coming from? Exalted players -- they have a game already, a perfect game for combos and crunch and player-centric adventure. Why would they switch -- they are playing Exalted because they don't want to play D&D in the first place. From the Wow/GW players? I don't think so. Those people are getting what they want and need from the games they already play, with much less fuss and far fewer restrictions on when they can play and with whom.

It is likely my own bias talking - and I recognize this -- but I don't think 4E is going to do or be what they want it to be. Things that are on top for 30 years aren't fads -- there's something about them that give them longevity. And changing those things can be disasterous. think about Star Trek, for example: only a few years on the air, but years in syndication, followed by three very successful 7 year series that essentially followed the same format and existed in the same miliue. As soon as they "reimagined" it, it failed utterly. D&D is similar, if in nothing else in the fan aspect.

Only time will tell of course, but I can say this much: all this tuff we've heard about 4e has given me a new appreciation of 3.x

 

[hong]

Things that are on top for 30 years aren't fads -- there's something about them that give them longevity.

Hit points are non-negotiable. Everything else is up for grabs.

 

[Hussar]

When I found myself unable to damage the enemy with my fireballs, it's time to take up my spell list and get some use out of something else, or ransack my equipment list for stuff it's been there for months. I'm playing a Rogue and we have an undead/construct encounter? Put your skills into use and try to do something else... create diversions, obstacles, support for the others...

This is from a few pages back. Don't have time right now to read the whole thread, but, I wanted to comment on this.

For the past three sessions, we've been facing constructs and elementals. The player of the rogue, who absolutely adores combat, has been sitting in the corner with zero to do. For THREE sessions. NINE hours of gameplay because his d4 damage just isn't going to do anything.

It's fine to say, "Oh, find something constructive to do" but, I don't play a character to find something else to do. I play a character because I want to play THAT character. If I'm playing a rogue, I want to backstab something. If I wanted to be utterly useless, I'd play a bard.

 

[Celebrim]

For the past three sessions, we've been facing constructs and elementals. The player of the rogue, who absolutely adores combat, has been sitting in the corner with zero to do. For THREE sessions. NINE hours of gameplay because his d4 damage just isn't going to do anything.

It's fine to say, "Oh, find something constructive to do" but, I don't play a character to find something else to do. I play a character because I want to play THAT character. If I'm playing a rogue, I want to backstab something. If I wanted to be utterly useless, I'd play a bard.

I really want to be sympathetic, but this is such an extreme case that its really hard to be. From what you've told me, the player primarily gets his enjoyment out of combat and yet he's deliberately chosen to play a rogue which is incredibly one dimensional in combat.

He's playing a small race with no strength bonus and apparently he has no back up strategy if the target is immune to criticals (he hasn't maxed out Use Magic Device, he hasn't invested in a bow with an energy boost to damage, he hasn't gone the rogue/ranger, rogue/fighter or rogue/barbarian route, etc.).

Didn't he this coming? It's not exactly surprising that if you build a one dimensional character that there are going to be alot of times when that character simply doesn't shine.

I bet he's a really darn good backstabber though.

 

[Stalker0]

It's fine to say, "Oh, find something constructive to do" but, I don't play a character to find something else to do. I play a character because I want to play THAT character. If I'm playing a rogue, I want to backstab something. If I wanted to be utterly useless, I'd play a bard.

I completely agree with this point, both as a dm and a player. As a player, the worst thing that can happen in a game is boredom. I know, I know, we all have to take turns in the spotlight. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm talking true boredom, where you might as well go grab some food for an hour for as much as you are contributing currently.

Rogues and undead are a common occurance on this one.

As a DM, I don't want my players to be bored, I want them to have fun. But that also means I have to work harder. If I suddenly want the campaign to shift into an undead hoard for a while, I have to consider that my rogue player is going to be bored. That limits my options.

That last point I would like to focus on a bit more, as it pertains to the whole per day/per encounter debate. As a dm, I want to run encounters my way. Maybe I want to have a herculean epic day of combat with 7 encounters. Maybe for the campaign I'm running I want only 1 or 2 combats a day. Since 3e's balance is so focused on the number of encounters per day, once again my options are limited. I can run 1 encounter a day, but then my fighters will watch as the wizard unleashes hell, only to be restored at the end of the day. I could run 7 a day and watch the wizard start shooting crossbow bolts. Neither is fun for my players.

With a per encounter system, this problem is greatly diminished. If I run 1 combat a day, everyone goes full out. If I run 7, everyone goes full out. If I need to challenge my players more, I just throw out higher CR monsters (and with this 1 MM a year thing, I won't run out of monsters). However in 3e, challenge often involves more encounters, which takes lots of game time (something I'm always short on).

In summary, I prefer a challenge model that depends on what monsters I throw at my party, and not how often I throw them. It lets wizards and fighters both equally contribute to a fight, and it allows me to vary my encounters for my game, not to worry about balancing classes as I do it.

 

[Nifft]

Here's the trouble with a "back up strategy": it costs resources which you could otherwise be putting into your specialty. And we all know that in D&D, specialists win. (Except when they are utterly ineffective.)

This is a deep and fundamental design issue -- I'd even say design flaw. 4e needs to enforce general competence, while still allowing meaningful customization. It's a tough job, but I'm willing to watch someone else do it.

Cheers, -- N