Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Jackelope King]

From another thread, I asked:

Would you claim that one of the problems you have with a hypothetical per-encounter system would be the loss of an attrition-based, per-day resource management system, which serves to affect the choices players make in light of the resources their characters have/have lost?

And I recieved this response:

Yes.

However, discussion of this point would have dragged the other thread even further off-topic, so I'll start this one.

The reason why I asked this question was because a common complaint I've observed leveled against the "complexity" of 3.Xe (whether you accept this complexity or not) is that it has "too much stuff".

This usually isn't in reference to non-core options. This is more a concern that a particular gamer doesn't like the idea of something like feats or skills in a game. I'm going to generalize and say that this is something I've seen more among the grognards, but there are plenty of breeds of grognard around these boards.

The complaint usually goes something like, "Why does the game force X upon me? Why can't it let me decide how to handle X on my own?"

It's an interesting point, and one which I brought up in my question above. We were discussing whether or not a per-encounter design better handled some problems than the per-day encounter design did (and as I found out, specifically the "9:00-9:15 AM adventure"). It was the opinion of those critical of the per-encounter design (among other things) that the exclusion of the per-day resource management system negatively impacted D&D. It was the opinion of others (myself included) that the inclusion of this per-day resource management system that hurt the game. I think it's largely a difference in playstyle, but the idea I present echoes the call of grognards for a simpler D&D, in a way.

RC, among others, agreed that the per-day resource system adds a restriction to D&D. Admittedly, for them and many others for the past 33 years, it's been a fun one. This restriction forces players to think carefully about how they expend their resources, and manage their remaining abilities (usually spells) carefully, lest they get overwhelmed later on. And this sort of tactical gameplay and resource management is just plain fun. In essence, it's a part (I am paraphrasing RC's and others' arguments here, so I ask them to correct me if I am misrepresenting their position).

My position is that the restriction of the per-day resource system, while not universally bad (33 years of D&D is a fair argument against that), is indeed bad for certain playstyles (mine included). I dislike the restriction that a per-day resource system puts on my games, especially when I want to deviate greatly from the recomended 4 average encounters / day (or the permutations thereof). If I only run 1 encounter / day, then the spellcasters are more powerful than they would be if I ran 4 encounters / day. If, on the other hand, I run more than 4 encounters, the spellcasters start to peter out and the non-casters seem comparatively stronger. Everything pivots around this (in my mind artificial) balance of 4 average encounters / day.

I believe that the game would be better served with fewer rules-related restrictions on gameplay style. Class restrictions made it impossible to play a dwarven wizard back in the day, which may be perfectly viable in someone's game world somewhere, tended to stifle creativity and enforce a certain artificial gameplay style. Dropping these was largely greeted with cheers when 3e came around, which said, "Now your dwaves can be wizards, but if you liked the old way, you can still say dwarves can't be wizards. But now you get to make the choice."

This is how I'd like to see gameplay-restrictive elements like attrition handled. Per-encounter lends itself to a certain style of gameplay which is perfectly justified in light of the meta-genre D&D attempts to recreate at the gametable, just as per-day is. However, since per-day tends to be more limiting in terms of what it allows, and since it is possible to reintroduce attrition back into the game "on top of" per-encounter resources as an extra of sorts. "Now you don't have to be limited to four average encounters per day because of attrition, but if you liked the old way, you can still bring attrition back. But now you get to make the choice."

However, since I'm quite aware that simpling writing "Dwarves cannot be wizards" in your houserules is considerably easier than "Resources suffer attrition at such a rate that players can expect to be drained after 4 average-difficult encounters", I would advocate the inclusion (in the DMG or the next UA or somesuch) of a system which outlines how to bring that feeling back. Perhaps it's just as simple as "change the recharge time on all 'per-encounter' abilities to 'per-day' and reduce the level of the slot required to cast it by one".

The overall gist I'm getting at is that, within the genre or meta-genre it attempts to emulate (in D&D's case, heroic high-fantasy), a game is better served by including the fewest number of artificial gameplay style restrictions possible while still providing the options necessary to restore those restrictions for games in which it's appropriate. In essence, if it limits the number of gameplay styles within the appropriate meta-genre, then it shouldn't be part of the baseline rules, but should instead be supported as an optional restriction to be added into the rules. The ruleset should be robust and complete enough to support many different playstyles within a genre, but not so overwhelming that it inhibits genre-appropriate playstyles from the game.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

One view that (maybe) adds some interesting point of view on this discussion is that of Moonte Cook (and I bet this particular entry in his column has been linked a lot more already )

Monte Cook on the evolving spellcaster in D&D

The thing is, you mention the meta-genre that D&D is supposed to cover, and under which the biggest possible numbers of playstyles should be supported with a robust ruleset. In my opinion, that metagenre is D&D itself. And the basic problem is that you have as many different playstyles in it as you have kinds of players, which is a damn broad range. If you want to support them all equally, you'd have to adress the needs of each kind equally, too, which won't really work, as each playstyle has (sometimes radically) different requirements in terms of hardcoded rules or detailed background.

D&D needs to be designed around a core assumption of play. The rules will have to be designed to support that core assumption primarily, and other playstyles secondarily. We're getting more and more glimpses of the core assumptions for 4E with every peek the current designers give us at what they are working on, and how it looks. And within those core assumptions is the theory that a "per encounter" mechanic for casters and additional abilities for every class will enhance gameplay...the kind of gameplay that the current designers think is preferable. If that is true is a very subjective matter, though. For those who prefer the style of play of older editions, 4E will probably not enhance their D&D experience, while those who felt very restricted by the older rules will welcome the new stuff with open arms. For a lot of people, the older restrictions make a lot of sense, and they can also explain why, and for at least an equal lot, those restrictions were completely nosensical, or at best a bad game design put in the game to attain some shoddy balance (see Monte's comment on the power gain of older wizard variants being "bad game design", something a lot of older edition players would simply shake their head at).

 

[gizmo33]

Perhaps it's just as simple as "change the recharge time on all 'per-encounter' abilities to 'per-day' and reduce the level of the slot required to cast it by one".

I think it would be very complicated. Powers are balanced across character classes, and while unlimited use powers, like an eldritch blast type thing, would be easy to redefine from "at will" to "1/day" (or whatever), what would you do to the other classes to balance them with this change? In cases like the rogue where the likely equivalent power would be "sneak attack" and yet it would be hard to make up a reasonable sounding justification for limiting that power to daily limit. More creative balancing acts would need to be playtested. In fact, if it were easy to change resource assignments in DnD it probably wouldn't take them that long to playtest the new edition.

It would be great to compromise and let each group run the game as they would wish but I think it would be a very tall order. I'm pretty skeptical at this point.

 

[gizmo33]

For those who prefer the style of play of older editions, 4E will probably not enhance their D&D experience,

I'm starting to think that this might not be the case. My problems have been with an "exclusively per-encounter" resource situation. I enumerated those problems on the other thread (that Jakelope references). Recently, someone posted a link to a blog entry by James Wyatt where he actually listed some of those same concerns. His ideas about the problems and solutions seemed to me to be a lot closer than I thought it would be.

In any case he was coming out against an exclusively per-encounter resource game and I was happy to see that.

So I think it's possible that while 4E won't look like 1E, it still might tap some into the playstyle. For example, the blog states that while there will be levels from 1 to 30, the power advancement will be flatter. This might actually wind up being closer to 1E than 3E, since level advancement in 1E tended to limit at the "name" levels. So the overall effect of 4E advancement could be similar to a 1E type advancement where the starting level is 3rd.

 

[Jer]

It would be great to compromise and let each group run the game as they would wish but I think it would be a very tall order. I'm pretty skeptical at this point.

I believe that this is why there are people still running 1e AD&D, and 2e AD&D, and B/X D&D, and so on. They didn't like the changes made to the game when the next edition came along, so they stuck with the edition they liked.

I suspect that there will be a large-ish group of folks who stick with 3e instead of moving to 4e. And that's not a comment on the quality of 4e, but on the fact that there will be people who like 3e's assumptions about how the game should be played and won't like the assumptions that 4e makes. Personally, no matter how good 4e is I'll be willing to play 3e forever - much as I'm willing to play B/X D&D anytime anyone wants to run a game. B/X D&D and 3e D&D both play quite differently, and I like them both for what they are, so I'm perfectly willing to play either. (As opposed to 1e or 2e, which I'm hesitent about playing because I don't care much for the playstyle that either of those games encourages).

 

[howandwhy99]

It's fundamentally going to come down to what Per Encounter means. In older versions of the game, characters had an encounter round limitation of Fatigue. (iirc) 3 attacks in a row, 5 double moves in a row, or 4 of any combination meant a -1 penalty. This was cumulative per Chainmail rules. 1 round of rest cleared this penalty no matter the total.

IMO, there are Per Encounter rules that make sense in the game world and there are some which do not.

1. A dragon breathes fire every 1d4 rounds. Why? He can't manage to build up the snot load I guess? As a DM, I've got my own reasons for if the Players ever explore that one, but it isn't a big deal.

My thinking is, many Maneuvers will exist along the same design strategy. Some may be dependent on each other: like some maneuvers can only be taken when in certain stances and what not, but each has their own rationale.

That's one of the big ones for me. An In-Game reason on why these features operate as they do. If they can keep to that, I welcome their inclusion even if they cannot be removed.

On another point, with a possible bad example, is:

2. Wizards which can cast Fireball every 1d4 rounds.

Now we're talking about PCs, not NPCs. I can have the dragon fire bomb towns all day long. That's a good thing. But for a wizard to have that ability, and literally it is all day long as encounters have no preset limit, the wizard is effectively on par with a dragon.

For some folks this won't be a problem at all. Going supernova whenever, wherever, without care of needing to conserve one's strength is just plain cool. But it also removes one of the biggest, longest-lasting elements of D&D: that it is a strategy game.

With Per Day abilities, the Players must plan ahead and make decisions knowing they can't just do whatever they please and always be prepared for ambushes, or getting back out of the dungeon, or crossing wild overlands, or, really, anything. They are not deciding based on resources, if Per Day resources are removed. If they can fight anywhere without resource loss, strategy is greatly diminished. It isn't just about who you fight and with what cool power each round. It was how intelligently you could use those abilities to win the battle before it even begun.

Listening to the recent podcast, it sounds like the word "Fun" may be equivalent to "the importance one has in each round of combat". And to be fun, a combat significant action must be taken. Is this the end of the Rogue guarding the exit? It may be so.

 

[hong]

Listening to the recent podcast, it sounds like the word "Fun" may be equivalent to "the importance one has in each round of combat". And to be fun, a combat significant action must be taken. Is this the end of the Rogue guarding the exit? It may be so.

We have a guy in our group who, in the past, has tended to be... less engaged. When he didn't feel like doing anything, he would say that he was checking to make sure nothing was coming up behind us. Nothing ever did, which was why he did it. He's not so... less engaged now, but it's become an in-joke.

 

[Li Shenron]

Listening to the recent podcast, it sounds like the word "Fun" may be equivalent to "the importance one has in each round of combat". And to be fun, a combat significant action must be taken. Is this the end of the Rogue guarding the exit? It may be so.

Mmm... for some reason it makes me think of those parents who want their children to have always something to do all the time: when the children are not at school, the parents arrange for them piano lessons, tennis lessons, scout excursions, being in a sport team, swimming pool, skiing... everything is planned and the child has no time for idle. Except that when I think about it, the best time of my childhood was when I was idle... I had no obligations and no idea what I should do, so what did I do? Did I sleep? Did I stare blankly at the wall? No, I had to find my own ways to enjoy my time, and I always came up with some creative good ideas, like making up my own games, drawing/painting or guess what... exploring a mysterious type of games called RPG I've found a huge article on a magazine.

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...

If 4e goes into the direction of cool alternative stuff it will be great, but the strong suspect is that it will simply allow for damage damage and more damage all the time by dropping all the restrictive circumstances :\

 

[Jackelope King]

From what I've read and my experience with other per-encounter systems, I have a suspicion that most per-encounter abilities will probably wind up being focused so as to really make the focus of the game the fight right here and now.

Wyatt's blog post summed it up well with the barbarian. As it is designed, it's essentially an ability that lets you be much stronger than normal (and in terms of balance as related to other classes, operate relatively on-par) for the duration of a given encounter. There's no real tactic to it... if it's a tough fight, you rage as a free action on the beginning of your first turn, no questions asked. The only thing you're really considering when you use a rage is will I need this later today more than I do now?

And while the tactical side of trying to decide whether or not to save the rage for later is quite fun by itself, often it comes down to metagaming, pure and simple (note that I do not intend for this use of "metagaming" to be intended as an insult). When I use a rage, I'm betting that I know how my DM plans adventures well enough to know that this is one where I'll need to use it and that I won't regret that choice later. I'm wagering one use of Rage that this encounter needs it and that a subsequent encounter later that day won't.

On the other hand, bringing it down to the focus of just this encounter means that on any given round, you're more likely to be making a tactical decision. "Do I spend my rage this round or should I wait until I'm closer to the BBEG?" "Should I use my Death From Above on this guy or save it for the other one?" "Is this really the best round to use my fireball?"

I think that 4E, if it switches to a per-encounter system, will likely do something along these lines. Rather than having five fireballs for the day, you might only have one fireball during an encounter, so the decision of when to use it is always a tactical one. From what's been said several times in the design blogs, the designers don't want combat to become static and boring, where the wizard can just chuck fireballs from round 1 to round 5 and the fighter uses Death From Above on every goblin who crosses him. Instead, it'll be a matter of chosing when to expend a resource like that with full knowledge of your choice. You'll be able to survey the battlefield and have to assess who the best target is for what instead of being in one fight and having to guess at what's coming next. It makes things more tactical without making it into a guessing/gambling game. That "per-day" part sounds like it'll remain part of the system, but it won't be the focus.

And if this is how it'll work, it should do nicely to bring casters and non-casters onto a more-level playing field. Number of encounters in a day no longer affects one group worse than the other, so I don't need to make sure I have enough encounters to keep the casters from "going nova". I can have just the number of encounters I need to make an adventure work, and the players have fewer artificial restrictions on their decisions.

(As a disclaimer, sure the battlefield can change in ways you don't predict... high damage or an ambush might completely change what you thought the battlefield would look like, making your decision of when to use X a bad choice. But it's not something as out of your control as random encounters coming out of nowhere to bite you in the rear.)

 

[pemerton]

With Per Day abilities, the Players must plan ahead and make decisions knowing they can't just do whatever they please and always be prepared for ambushes, or getting back out of the dungeon, or crossing wild overlands, or, really, anything. They are not deciding based on resources, if Per Day resources are removed. If they can fight anywhere without resource loss, strategy is greatly diminished.

Strategy is not exhausted by resource-management considerations. Furthermore, for a party of non-spell users in 1st ed D&D it is not affected by the sorts of resource-management considerations under discussion here, because (except for their hit points) non-spell users have only "at will" abilities.

Even once we factor in spell-casting, there is no reason to think that "per-encounter" should make a difference. At present the strategic question is "How do we take out the bad guy, while having sufficient resources left to escape?" In a "per-encounter" approach, the question is "How do we take out the bad guy, without having to deal with all the mooks in the same encounter?" Different question, but no reason to think that it doesn't have the same degree of subtlety and generate an equally interesting set of gameplay options.

From what's been said several times in the design blogs, the designers don't want combat to become static and boring, where the wizard can just chuck fireballs from round 1 to round 5 and the fighter uses Death From Above on every goblin who crosses him. Instead, it'll be a matter of chosing when to expend a resource like that with full knowledge of your choice. You'll be able to survey the battlefield and have to assess who the best target is for what instead of being in one fight and having to guess at what's coming next. It makes things more tactical without making it into a guessing/gambling game.

Agreed. So "per-encounter" has no obvious deterimental impact on strategy and tactics. It does change the flavour of gameplay compared to 1st ed, but I think 3E had already done this. The trend is just continuing.