Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[pemerton]

If all characters are equally useful in all situations, it means that all your situations and characters are pretty much the same.

As someone else said, this is not true. If the mechanics and dimensions of their usefulness differ, then the PCs will not all be pretty much the same.

"useful" should not equal "able to deal damage".

Given the preponderance of combat in D&D play, however, "equaly useful" does have to equate to "equally able to participate meaningfully in combat encounters." That may not necessarily be via damage dealing, however - there are other things to do in combat.

"That reduces the game to a dice rolling contest centered around hit point attrition.

Not necessarily. In fact, if the class abilities are well designed so that they optimise only through clever synergies that must be varied as the abilities of the opponents vary, then the game may become very mechanically interesting in a way that hitherto it has not been (because non-spell-users don't have interesting ranges of abilities to choose from).

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

I don't know who you are paraphrasing, but it doesn't seem all that wise to me. In general moral philosophy there is a long line of thought that holds that everyone is special (and thus of equal moral worth). And when it comes to an RPG, I don't see why one player should be special and others subordinate.

 

[pemerton]

I think it is also worth noting that some classes that have never (to my knowledge) had daily use abilities will be gaining them.

<snip>

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

I think it will be a significant change to the game, because the players of those PCs will be able to (and, indeed, will have to) engage in the same sort of decision-making during play that spell-casters currently do (namely, how to optimise the deployment of their abilities given the current situation and the nature of the opponents faced).

As Monte Cook talked about in a column some time ago, it will mark the end of the significant difference between fighters and wizards as far as play experience is concerned - that is, fighters will no longer be a class of interest only to beginning players, and wizards playable only by the old hands.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

Maybe the decisions related to such abilities might make it a bit harder to newbies (because the general assumption is it is easier to play a fighter then a wizard).

So, for me it boils down to the question: Is it good for the game to have resourced based on the "daily" time frame at all? Or, better put: Is it good for your personal game? If the answer is yes, I think such abilities for non-spellcasters are a good idea. It puts everyone on even terrain, everybody learns how to use such abilities, and everybody can get the entertainment of making such decisions.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

As Monte Cook talked about in a column some time ago, it will mark the end of the significant difference between fighters and wizards as far as play experience is concerned - that is, fighters will no longer be a class of interest only to beginning players, and wizards playable only by the old hands.

You know, this is something I never really followed from my own experience, since my first character was a magic-user, and it really took me some time before I played a fighter. Also had plenty of first-time players who went for a wizard of some flavour, without so many problems that many seem to associate with that.

 

[pemerton]

You know, this is something I never really followed from my own experience, since my first character was a magic-user, and it really took me some time before I played a fighter. Also had plenty of first-time players who went for a wizard of some flavour, without so many problems that many seem to associate with that.

I think Monte was referring to a general tendency, rather than a universal phenomenon. If you read articles published about the game back in the early days (I've got in mind especially those in early numbers of White Dwarf, because they're the ones I happen to have read, but it's also there to a certain extent in the 1st ed PHB and DMG) you'll see there's also a suggestion that playing a magic-user well depends upon experience with the game, and is indeed the most satisfying class for experienced players to run. So I think Monte's notion is certainly not unique to him.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Nah, I agree that especially higher-level magic-users/wizards are a class that reward more experienced players more than, say, fighters or thieves/rogues. On the other hand, given the leveling speed in older editions, a player WAS more experienced by the time his magic-user hit the levels where his class turned a bit more complicated. While the fighter was still as simple as ever by design, and only as complex as the player made him.

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

I never said equally useful in all situations and never said should be able to deal damage. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

The game should never stop for some people because they've run out of spells and are forced to resort to an out-of-role ability (such as using a crossbow to attack) at which they totally suck (most wizards just waste money firing bolts that never hit).

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

The players should always be special. The mentality that the players should be average people makes for a pretty boring heroic fantasy game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

See, this design decision comes completely from a DM-driven game style and not a Player-driven one. It limits player freedom and player choices from actually being consequential. 3rd edition play often assumed this inversion. It gave players power over the rule dictation and assumed DMs dictated PC/Player decision making. From a simulation POV, that's just backwards.

If the point is to reward players for their skillful play, then they should have control over where they go and achieve or suffer resulting combats from those decisions. If the point is for DMs to run a game world for Players/PCs to explore and be surprised by, then the rules - essentially how the world functions - must be in the DMs' hands and unknown (but learnable as the "feel" of the world) by Players/PCs.

What Players choose to do is not dictated by DMs.
How the DM functions the world as a result to these choices is not dictated by Players.

Well put.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

I think you need to watch the movie again. Pay closer attention to Dash's dialogue.

RC

 

[Reynard]

I think you need to watch the movie again. Pay closer attention to Dash's dialogue.

RC

Have a cookie.