Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Campbell]

So you're simulating... solar flares? What?

I simulate nothing. Not a damn thing. Rather, my driving motivation from either side of the screen is to seek out coolness wherever I can find it and bring it to the forefront of the play experience. As a GM this means creating interesting settings with engaging NPCs, preparing dynamic scenarios and challenging encounters in diverse environments, and providing my players with chances to have a meaningful impact on the game in the manner of their choosing. As a player (for me personally) it means creating a dynamic character with a distinct personality, engaging with the setting and other players' characters, dealing with the current in-game situation with strategic thinking, displaying tactical acumen and helping other players and the GM get what they want out of the play experience. Above all else, seeking the cool means that if verisimilitude gets in the way of coolness, verisimilitude can take a flying leap.

 

[pemerton]

Are you reading the same passage? Effectively, all strategy is meaningless because no one ever has to worry about anything until initiative is rolled.

As I said, strategy is not just about per-day abilities. As it happens, I mostly GM Rolemaster, which has a mixture of per-day (spell points), per-encounter (this is roughly true of sustaind Adrenal Moves) and round-by-round trade-off (attack vs parry) resrouces. The per-day resources have rather little interesting effect on player strategy - when they are running low they turn invisible, fly high into the air, conjure a platform and rest until they get PPs back. It is, in fact, a rather tedious part of the game.

The interesting strategy in the game consists in cultivating alliances, trying to turn enemies against one another, plotting out the sequence of missions they want to engage in (eg do we assault X straight away before they know we're coming, or do we free Y from demonic control first to give us a place of safe refuge?).

Neither is any combat affected by any other potential combat. "Run or we'll never have enough strength to escape this place!"

This is also not true. For example, if the PCs lose a combat then that could have very great significance for a future combat (eg the future antagonist knows the PCs are coming, or has reinforcements, or will retreat to take shelter with the foe who was not defeated, or . . .)

Life is rarely about tactics and almost always about strategy.

Being a civilian rather than a soldier my life involves little of either in the literal sense. In the metaphorical sense it's hard to say: I make many short-term decisions and long term decisions, but very few of them involve resource management. (My bank already decided those for me when it set the interest rate on my mortgage.)

Strategy actually requires roleplay; it requires role assumption to see the situation.

I agree that strategy can involve role assumption. But I don't see how there is a great deal of role assumption in deciding to run away and rest because the magic-user is low on spells.

Tactics-Only is the potential New Game.

I agree that introducing per-encounter resources introduces a new dimension into the game, and does downplay, if not completely remove, the operational dimension of play. I have posted about this at great length in another thread (the one that OP referred to), espcially here, so won't repeat those ideas in any detail. I will just say, however, that certain pretty standard fantasy adventure plots and themes become more playable if per-day resources are not the only ones available.

Tactics that only begin after initiative is rolled are colloquially called "Hack & Slash". It's isn't bad, but play shouldn't be restricted to it.

I don't see that resource-management within the context of an encounter is any less role-infused than resource-management across encounters. Both require a sound knowledge of the mechanics and a sound intuition as to what the future might bring.

Furthermore, an interesting feature of most pure-per-encounter systems is that they involve Fate Points/Hero Points which are earned by the PC engaging in partiuclar ways with certain plot/thematic elements chosen by the player, and which can be spent in pursuit of those same elements. When tactical decision making is being shaped by the acquisition and expenditure of these sorts of Points, a high degree of roleplay is taking place.

I'm sorry, but isn't this is a life simulation game?

For many players, not really. It's an exploration game, but what they want to explore may be some particular plot or theme, not life as such. In particular, given that players come to the table to have fun playing a game they often do not want adversity for their PC to amount to adversity for them!

Operational play of the sort you are defending also has a tendency to make players miss turns: the wizard misses a turn when s/he has no spell to cast, the rogue misses a turn when s/he is guarding the exit, etc. For many players, this is an unhappy feature in a game - they don't just want to know that their PC is contributing to the party's success, they also actually want to do something at the table. The introduction of per-encounter resources is intended to reduce the amount of such "turn-missing".

I find both Feats and Skills, as they stand now, both limiting to PCs and play.

<snip discussion of 3E character build mechanics and their interaction with the unfolding in-game story>

My dislike of arbitrary ability score advancement stems from the same argument.

In that case, I suspect that you will find 4e at least as little to your taste as 3E. Do you play primarily OD&D, 1st ed AD&D or Moldvay/Cook D&D (if I've understood your preferences correctly, it seems like one of these would be the best edition of D&D for you)?

In a system with highly developed character build and action resolution mechanics (like 3E, or RQ, or RM, or indeed most roleplaying systems that I'm familiar with) there seem to be basically two ways of going: either character build is constrained by what is played out in-game (this is how RQ does it - skill improvement depends on getting ticks, which depend upon using the skill in game) or else character build is taken to be indicative of what is happening in-game, although it may not have been played out (so we infer that the PC has been studying Orcish in her spare time, because she now has a skill rank in it when she didn't before). GMing a game which takes the second approach, it seems to me that it is up to the player to explain how, in-game, the PC acquired the new skill/feat/ability score.

The second approach probably leads to a greater degree of mechanical balance between PCs, but as you identify it also does require taking a different attitude towards the simulation-relationship between what actually happends at the table, and in-game events.

It should probably also be noted that, for someone who preferes the first approach, the character progression rules in D&D, with automatic combat skill improvement, only make sense on the assumption that the gameplay mainly involves combat. This is one way in which D&D can be experienced as limiting by some players of the game.

The idea that it should be tossed after 33 years is a bit drastic just because people's tastes are shifting, don't you think?

I couldn't think of a better reason for tossing an element of a game's mechanics than that people no longer want to play that sort of game. What else would a company that designs and sells games base its decisions on, except its perception of the game-playing tastes of its likely customers? Are you suggesting that they have some sort of duty of fidelity to the game as such?

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

Doesn't sound that way to me at all.

It makes me think of when parents throw a party for their kids and then make sure that every kid at the party is doing something fun, so that noone is just sitting at the table, looking bored, waiting for their turn to do something. I know that I always hated going to parties where everyone couldn't be having fun at the same time.

 

[Henry]

On the other hand, though I won't know until May, it would seem to me that if one wanted limited resource management, one wouldn't even have to go as far as pruning "per encounter" back to "per day" -- even "per hour" "per 3 hours," etc. could give one the same effect. Use up all your abilities in a single fight, or trigger the alarm when you don't want to, and they STILL won't have the resources to do a certain task. I even doubt that it will mess up character balance that much, since everyone is recharging their per encounter stuff at the same rate (and according to one quote I saw, I think EVERY class is going to have some per encounter stuff going on).

 

[Reynard]

Doesn't sound that way to me at all.

It makes me think of when parents throw a party for their kids and then make sure that every kid at the party is doing something fun, so that noone is just sitting at the table, looking bored, waiting for their turn to do something. I know that I always hated going to parties where everyone couldn't be having fun at the same time.

If all characters are equally useful in all situations, it means that all your situations and characters are pretty much the same. What's the fun in that? Moreover, "useful" should not equal "able to deal damage". That reduces the game to a dice rolling contest centered around hit point attrition.

To paraphrase great wisdom: "Saying everyone is special is just another way of saying no one is."

 

[TwinBahamut]

If all characters are equally useful in all situations, it means that all your situations and characters are pretty much the same. What's the fun in that? Moreover, "useful" should not equal "able to deal damage". That reduces the game to a dice rolling contest centered around hit point attrition.

To paraphrase great wisdom: "Saying everyone is special is just another way of saying no one is."

I'm sorry, but this is demonstratably false.

To provide a good counter-example, let's assume a group of four people, in three different situations.

Situation 1, a battle: Player A is a damage dealer, who is effective at killing single enemies. Player B is a healer/support type who protects the others from dangerous attacks. Player C can wipe out mooks quickly and can debuff the boss enemies. Player D is tough, capable of protecting his allies, and disrupts enemy formations and strategies.

Situation 2, a pit trap with spikes and snakes. Player A is quick and wise, so he doesn't fall in and can lower a rope to help the others. Player B can heal the damage from the fall and cure the poison. Player C clears away the snakes so that they can get out of the trap more easily. Player D uses his strength to help B and C get up the rope.

Situation 3, a tricky three-day negotiation full of intrigue. Player A is good at ambushing potential assassins and gathering intel on various groups. Player B has good Sense Motive, and can figure out the deceptions. Player C can divine potential problems, and send secret messages. Player D is a charismatic speaker, and is good at persuading others.

Huh, I think some people might have changed class once or twice there, but it doesn't matter much. As long as classes are built with a variety of abilities for a variety of situations, and the set up that "only bards talk to people and only rogues negate traps" is removed, there is no reason your claim has to be true.

 

[FireLance]

If all characters are equally useful in all situations, it means that all your situations and characters are pretty much the same. What's the fun in that? Moreover, "useful" should not equal "able to deal damage". That reduces the game to a dice rolling contest centered around hit point attrition.

To paraphrase great wisdom: "Saying everyone is special is just another way of saying no one is."

You know, given that the quote was delivered by the antagonist in the film, it's not surprising that everyone gets a gut-level, "No, not everyone should be special!" reaction to it.

However, think about it a bit more. It's actually saying that the world ought to be divided into "special" people and "non-special" people, and implying that the special people are better or more valuable than the rest. Whether or not this is true in reality, it's a potentially dangerous line of thought.

In a way, the quote isn't even true. It would be more accurate to say, "When everyone is special in the same way, no-one is", but it wouldn't be as nice a sound bite.

If everyone is special, but in different and unique ways, everyone can take pride that they can do something that no-one else can, and still appreciate other people for the things that only they can do. Sure, if everyone can shoot fireballs, or if everyone has a +5 weapon, then shooting fireballs or having a +5 weapon is not special. However, if one person can turn invisible while another is very fast and another is very strong, they are all special in their own ways.

 

[Reynard]

Huh, I think some people might have changed class once or twice there, but it doesn't matter much. As long as classes are built with a variety of abilities for a variety of situations, and the set up that "only bards talk to people and only rogues negate traps" is removed, there is no reason your claim has to be true.

Sure it matters. In fact, your whole argument hinges on it.

Nonetheless, I understand what you're saying. The problem though is that any character, any group of characters, is going to have a finite number of abilities available to them. Designing encounters around the idea that each character must be equally important and "powerful" in the encounter means, given that limited selection, you're going to run out of encounter types pretty quickly. What's the bigger problem is that while you detailed three types of encounters -- combat, trap and social -- you gave them equal weight. I think that is a pretty far stretch from what you'll likely see, and isn't consistent with "traditional" adventure design. More likely you are talking about at least half of your encounters being combat oriented -- which is why, I think, that the vast majority of 4E previews and blog posts and the like have consistently circled back around telling you how awesome the explody goodness of every class is going to be and how every class is going to be able to do something every time (even if it makes more sense for someone o watch the back door).

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

From another thread, I asked:


And I recieved this response:


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

I'd like to ask why people think that the move to an encounter-focused resource system is necessarily the complete abandonment of daily resource attrition. In the podcast, they came out and said that the whole thing is a balancing act. You want to avoid the 15-minute adventuring day, but you also want to avoid "hey, we were level 1 this morning, and now we're level 8, and there's still no reason for us to stop and rest."

I don't think that attrition of per-day effects is completely gone. Take HP, for instance. While there might be more ways to restore them, it might be a game of diminishing returns. For every 10 HP damage you take, the healer might average 7 HP over an encounter in those "attack and heal" abilities. Between combats, healing spells might be per-day abilities, and so will get used up over a couple combats. After a handful of encounters, you might be seriously beat up and need to stop and recover.

The thing is, we don't know what the system will be like, except for what they've told us. And what they've told us is that they don't want to go too far in either direction. The prognostication of doom seems a bit premature at this point.

 

[cdsaint]

I think it is also worth noting that some classes that have never (to my knowledge) had daily use abilities will be gaining them. So while the wizard will have some ability to do something more useful than toss a poorly aimed dart every round if he is out of spells, the fighter or rogue will face the decision of when to use their daily special whatever to best effect. This will mean that for the first time these classes will have to consider if they should use their daily abilities or husband them for some future encounter.

How do people feel about this aspect of the changes? Will this count as an improvement in the game?

Chris