Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Crazy Jerome]

To me, the most interesting question in all of this is not the per-encounter stuff, but the per-day stuff that will be left. After all, many campaigns from the very beginning of D&D were such that wizards always had wands and scrolls and other things, that were effectively per-encounter. (They had charges, but you found even more before you ran out. The challenge was that you often found something different and had to find a good use for it.)

Having fewer per-day resources makes them both more important and less important. They are only 20% of the character's power, but they are a 20% that comes in a lot fewer pieces than a 3E wizard's spell list (or at least that seems to be the drift).

 

[Stalker0]

Also, we have to consider that the encounter paradigm may change with the new system.

Currently, the dm is encourage to have lots of combats per day (due to the per day model). In 4e, dms may be encourage to have larger, single combats per day. A drawn out combat where suddenly the party is draining their per encounter resources and has to make due.

One of the benefits of this system is how a party can escape this model.

In the previous 4 encounters per day, the players would "cheat" the system by stopping after 1 or 2 fights and rest. Now, any good dm will stop that once in a while, but few are going to do it every time.

In the new system, escaping the encounter probably involves running, hiding, escaping the blood thirsty creatures trying to kill you. That's a lot more exciting to me then, "we stop and rest."

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Also, we have to consider that the encounter paradigm may change with the new system.

Currently, the dm is encourage to have lots of combats per day (due to the per day model). In 4e, dms may be encourage to have larger, single combats per day. A drawn out combat where suddenly the party is draining their per encounter resources and has to make due.

One of the benefits of this system is how a party can escape this model.

In the previous 4 encounters per day, the players would "cheat" the system by stopping after 1 or 2 fights and rest. Now, any good dm will stop that once in a while, but few are going to do it every time.

In the new system, escaping the encounter probably involves running, hiding, escaping the blood thirsty creatures trying to kill you. That's a lot more exciting to me then, "we stop and rest."

Would fit with that idea of Mike Mearls I read at the start of this whole 4E madness to try and turn a dungeon into one big encounter, with one louder encounter triggering a chain of arrivals coming into the fray from neighbouring rooms. That way, a party who's just fighting the group of skeletons in Room 4 might find itself confronted with a scouting group of kobolds out to see who disturbed the undead, one or two carrion crawlers attracted by the scent of kobold blood, maybe the ghost of the necromancer resting 3 doors down who wants to check who invades his sanctum, and finally the head of the red dragon living in Room 21 one level lower, peeking through all the holes the undead came from, telling the kids to get off his front dungeon or he'll roast them.

Definitely would draw out one encounter until the characters run out of their "per encounter" stuff. Also would mean the previous "rest breaks" would simply happen more often, but with a shorter duration. Interesting shift in encounter and dungeon crawling paradigm for sure, since vancian magic, for example, only makes up 20% of a wizard's magic, meaning most players will break and run when they are out of 80% of their powers, especially if most of those come back after a minute or three of quiet rest.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I haven't read through the thread yet, but I'd like to make a couple of points:

(1) My houserules make for a more complex D&D. The idea that wanting resource management = wanting simpler D&D is wrong.

(2) That said, I want a more universally complex D&D. I want the current combat system streamlined to play without minis and without consuming hours per fight. I want the non-combat systems to have greater granularity (something 4e is promising, I note). I want spellcasters to be able to make interesting choices to trade other resources for more spells (ex, X points of temporary Con damage = Y levels of spells restored).

Basically, I want the granularity of options that 3.X delivers, coupled with smoother game play and the sense of active exploration inherent in 1e and earlier. I want a wider range of possible encounters, which means that lower-level threats have to be able to meaningfully threat higher-level PCs.

Is this so much to ask?


RC

 

[Jackelope King]

I haven't read through the thread yet, but I'd like to make a couple of points:

(1) My houserules make for a more complex D&D. The idea that wanting resource management = wanting simpler D&D is wrong.

You misread my opening post, then. I was suggesting that the call for a removal of the per-day resource system is similar to calls from older gamers for the removal of things like feats and skills because they interfere with their playstyle, because both of them introduce new areas to explore (which may not always be desired) and the restrictions they impose on gameplay aren't always wanted.

(2) That said, I want a more universally complex D&D. I want the current combat system streamlined to play without minis and without consuming hours per fight. I want the non-combat systems to have greater granularity (something 4e is promising, I note). I want spellcasters to be able to make interesting choices to trade other resources for more spells (ex, X points of temporary Con damage = Y levels of spells restored).

Basically, I want the granularity of options that 3.X delivers, coupled with smoother game play and the sense of active exploration inherent in 1e and earlier. I want a wider range of possible encounters, which means that lower-level threats have to be able to meaningfully threat higher-level PCs.

Is this so much to ask?


RC

Ain't nothin' wrong with that. I just think, based on my experience with per-encounter systems and what the designers are saying, the per-encounter experience will be able to do this. I also think that you're still badly misguided in your assumption that an encounter that doesn't do the equivalent of bleed the characters a little of their per-day abilities is "insignificant", but I think that's a matter of playstyles.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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 )

I disagree with Monte that all classes should be equally fun to play for all types of players, and I think that this is an unachievable goal in any case. If you liked the old magic-user, for example, what class now offers the features that you find funnest?

It is better, IMHO, to have classes that approach problems in different ways, so that individual players can decide what approaches they enjoy, and then find those approaches inherent in the game.

 

[Jackelope King]

I disagree with Monte that all classes should be equally fun to play for all types of players, and I think that this is an unachievable goal in any case. If you liked the old magic-user, for example, what class now offers the features that you find funnest?

It is better, IMHO, to have classes that approach problems in different ways, so that individual players can decide what approaches they enjoy, and then find those approaches inherent in the game.

While okay in theory, in practice this leads to problems. Spellcasters are at their best at the beginning of the day, as we all know, and outshine non-casters in this way after about level 5. But as you add more encounters, the non-casters start to outshine the casters. I don't mind at all there being different approaches to "powers" in the game with different mechanics (I adore psionics and binders, and I also really like Incarnum even if the flavor makes me gag sometimes ).

This disparity is in direct oposition to the goal of "everyone can have fun during every encounter". What I would rather see would be these sorts of system and all the mechanical differences they have balanced on a per-encounter system. Hey, they did it on a per-day system. I think they can handle this too.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This disparity is in direct oposition to the goal of "everyone can have fun during every encounter". What I would rather see would be these sorts of system and all the mechanical differences they have balanced on a per-encounter system. Hey, they did it on a per-day system. I think they can handle this too.

It may be a playstyle thing, because in my tabletop gaming experience I've never (or very, very seldom) seen the problem. Inexperienced players have that "everything is shiny" thing going, and experienced players are usually able to understand the system enough to pick a class that they can enjoy. Working as a group, there is always at least Aid Another to have a real effect on combat.

Of course, the more varied the events of the game world, the more characters with non-combat focuses can shine. I never got the problem with the 3e bard.

I do think that having some resources recharge faster than per-day can work (as I said much earlier, I did this with my house rules), although it depends very much on what those resources are, and whether or not there is a cost (or potential cost) associated with recharging.

IMHO, to be interesting a decision must have both consequences and context. I try very hard to make sure that there are both for every decision, mechanical and/or otherwise, in the games I play. For example, using VP/WP, I allow 1 VP/lvl to return with 1 minute's rest, where 10 minute's rest restores all VP. OTOH, 10 minute's rest might trigger another encounter.

I also say that you can fight CON + Lvl rounds before you begin to tire. You take 1 pt of Vitality damage for fighting the next round, 2 for fighting the round thereafter, then 3, then 4, and so on. But, if you don't make an attack roll or full move one round you can "respite" and reset your counter. This is introduced specifically to make hordes of weaker foes more dangerous (hence significant) and to make moments where hero and villian respite to trade barbs.

RC

 

[hong]

I disagree with Monte that all classes should be equally fun to play for all types of players, and I think that this is an unachievable goal in any case. If you liked the old magic-user, for example, what class now offers the features that you find funnest?

The old magic-user, of course.

It is better, IMHO, to have classes that approach problems in different ways, so that individual players can decide what approaches they enjoy, and then find those approaches inherent in the game.

Well, what's life without a little risk?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Would fit with that idea of Mike Mearls I read at the start of this whole 4E madness to try and turn a dungeon into one big encounter, with one louder encounter triggering a chain of arrivals coming into the fray from neighbouring rooms. That way, a party who's just fighting the group of skeletons in Room 4 might find itself confronted with a scouting group of kobolds out to see who disturbed the undead, one or two carrion crawlers attracted by the scent of kobold blood, maybe the ghost of the necromancer resting 3 doors down who wants to check who invades his sanctum, and finally the head of the red dragon living in Room 21 one level lower, peeking through all the holes the undead came from, telling the kids to get off his front dungeon or he'll roast them.

I've always used this kind of "wave" encounter design. Or at least, I started it very soon, because I was using it in 1982. It seemed a natural outgrowth of the 1st ed. AD&D model. It works great even with per-day resources, precisely because it prevents the fight/rest, fight/rest habit. And for that matter, you don't even have to do it all the time. Do it just enough that the players are worried about it, and they will hold back some firepower on every encounter, in case this one turns out to be the kickoff to a wave.

The reasons for using it in per-encounter are different, as are the explicit techniques and balancing options, but it has always made sense as a GM strategy to keep the players on their toes.