Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Reynard]

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).

You keep coming from this place where combat is, if not the only thing, the most important thing. Which it isn't, for me and in my games. So I don't much mind of the wizard sits back while the fighters fight so he can open the magic portal door thing later on, while the fighters sit back. "Usefulness" should be balanced at the adventure level, not the encounter level.

 

[Celebrim]

(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).

This is I think where my feelings most depart from your narrative.

I'm one of those older players. So is Monte. I don't at all disagree with him that the 'start out weak but slowly gain phenomenal cosmic power' pattern of 1st-3rd edition Wizards is 'bad design' and problimatic, especially in 3rd edition where the gap between Wizards and other classes in durability began to close, where as the relative maximum theoretical power of classes like Fighter signficantly decreased compared to previous editions (very little could seriously threaten a 15th level fighter with a good Con score in 1st edition).

So while I'm sympathetic to things which would clean up the balance between non-spellcasting and spellcasting classes at the extreme ends, I don't think that per encounter balancing either directly follows from this as a logical means to that end or that in and of itself it would achieve it. You might have some valid reasons for wanting to go to a per encounter system, but it would be primarily to address the disparity between spell-casting and non-spellcasting classes.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

Yes, it is a potentially dangerous line of thought, but it is true in reality. Some people are more special than others. I think the movie was about recognizing that without resenting it. Life is not fair. Some of us are more talented than the rest. Even some of us that are pretty talented have to recognize that there are other people who possess extremes of talent that we'll just never match.

What I think the movie was trying to get at is that although the idea of 'some people are more special' is a dangerous line of thought, any line of thought which insists we must deny reality is also a dangerous line of thought. We are all indebted to the Thomas Edison's, Martin Luther King's, Albert Einstein's, and so forth of this world precisely because they were in thier way more special than the rest of us, and did and made something that the rest of us could not have done or made. Sure, those individuals have feet of clay and are human like the rest of us, and are not by virtue of being special entitled to anything except maybe having some respect for what they give to everyone else.

I think that the movie is a reaction to the notion that sense we can't make everyone special, then we will make the special people normal. My gut reaction to the quote is not, "Everyone shouldn't be special!", but rather, "Don't tear people down!" Because in real life, we can't (yet) give everyone super powers so really how we obtain parity tends to be tearing people down and not building people up.

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.

But that's just the thing. Everyone isn't special in the sense of being able to do things that no-one else can. I've got a very high IQ and average or better stats in just about everything, and I'm not special in the sense of being able to do anything that no-one else can. I've met plenty of people who are more talented than me in just about every way. My intelligence may make me a rarity and an oddity, but it doesn't make me in any stretch of the imagination uniquely capable much less profoundly uniquely capable. We are all special because we are unique individuals and no mortal has the power to restore any one of us if we are lost, but most of us are nonetheless ordinary and of ordinary value. We should resent anyone for being extraordinary, and indeed we ought to make heroes of more our extraordinary talents than just atheletes. Real super-heroes don't shoot fireballs.

Each of us ought to be striving to be the best we can be with what we have, not worrying about whether anyone else was given more than we have.

 

[Philip]

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.

True, but in practice it meant that intelligent players would attempt to rest and recover their limited resources whenever some of it was spent. Consequently, in nearly all encounters the PCs have 100% of their resources unless you forced some time-constriction upon them.

I got a bit tired of always trying to find believable time restrictions to force upon the players, and the players got tired as well of the feeling of 'always having to run'.

A common counter: attacking the PCs when they recover their resources is hard to do as well. Especially if such attacks never happen when they are not busy recovering their resources (they are just sleeping because they are tired for example), and they only really compound the problem: if they are attacked while recovering and survive, the motivation to recover resources only gets larger.

Strategic use of resources is only feasible if there is some kind of meta-game agreement between the DM and the players that the coming encounter(s) are survivable without giving it their full.

I find that most characters don't act as if the next encounter will be their last, because their players are aware of this understanding. To me that is (for most characters) weird and poor RP.

 

[Philip]

This is one problem I have with the per day system, that there is no good reason why an npc wizard should not call down heaven and earth upon the pcs. They are likely the greatest threat he has ever faced, and he's certainly not going to go down in some dungeon and face a hoard of other nasties that day. The best chance he has to save his life is to throw every nasty spell he has as quickly as possible. The only thing that prevents that is DM fiat.

Precisely the problem with the multiple encounters per day (or better, before recovering resources) paradigma. I think it a strange conceit that PCs are treating a fight with NPCs as if their lives aren't at stake, because 'it is the first encounter of the day'.

 

[Raven Crowking]

True, but in practice it meant that intelligent players would attempt to rest and recover their limited resources whenever some of it was spent. Consequently, in nearly all encounters the PCs have 100% of their resources unless you forced some time-constriction upon them.

Care to come over here and say that: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3818902#post3818902

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

That's interesting as they performed the same homogenization to races for 3rd edition. Thankfully they are changing races back into substantially different beings for 4e. This is another change in 4e that returns to pre-d20 philolosophy.

Pre-d20 D&D allowed powerful races to start at 1st level by either limiting XP or level advancement. But the limitation was made up by a more powerful race to begin with. Of course class advancement breaks weren't arbitrarily equivalent either - allowing PrC-like classes to be more powerful than others and for classes to have differentiations in power while at the same XP total.

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

Magic-Users who can act effectively without requiring each and every round to be a spell? Oh yes, this is an improvement. Another turning back to when Ability Scores did not affect BAB and BAB was rationed in 2/3, 1/2, & 1/3 portions (as they are returning to in 4th).

3rd edition didn't do this so well. The difference between to-hit bonuses was 1 point at 1st level and 6 at finishing 10th (after a good number of spells/day had been gained). The difference in 3rd edition can be seen right away: -1 for Wizards w/o Str. bonuses and +4?5?+ for fighters and other top BAB classes with bonus weapons. This divergence grew fast and wide as levels increased.

 

[Celebrim]

Another turning back to when Ability Scores did not affect BAB and BAB was rationed in 2/3, 1/2, & 1/3 portions (as they are returning to in 4th).

I don't understand what you mean. Please explain.

 

[howandwhy99]

True, but in practice it meant that intelligent players would attempt to rest and recover their limited resources whenever some of it was spent. Consequently, in nearly all encounters the PCs have 100% of their resources unless you forced some time-constriction upon them.

I got a bit tired of always trying to find believable time restrictions to force upon the players, and the players got tired as well of the feeling of 'always having to run'.

A common counter: attacking the PCs when they recover their resources is hard to do as well. Especially if such attacks never happen when they are not busy recovering their resources (they are just sleeping because they are tired for example), and they only really compound the problem: if they are attacked while recovering and survive, the motivation to recover resources only gets larger.

Strategic use of resources is only feasible if there is some kind of meta-game agreement between the DM and the players that the coming encounter(s) are survivable without giving it their full.

I find that most characters don't act as if the next encounter will be their last, because their players are aware of this understanding. To me that is (for most characters) weird and poor RP.

This is one problem I have with the per day system, that there is no good reason why an npc wizard should not call down heaven and earth upon the pcs. They are likely the greatest threat he has ever faced, and he's certainly not going to go down in some dungeon and face a hoard of other nasties that day. The best chance he has to save his life is to throw every nasty spell he has as quickly as possible. The only thing that prevents that is DM fiat.

Precisely the problem with the multiple encounters per day (or better, before recovering resources) paradigma. I think it a strange conceit that PCs are treating a fight with NPCs as if their lives aren't at stake, because 'it is the first encounter of the day'.

I think these are getting close to the heart of the debate.

Responding to the 2nd first, encounters are not predetermined by the DM. Four encounters per day may be the balancing mechanism in 3.5, but there is no implication that 4 "EL = Party Level" encounters will be met each day. Nor any such equivalent. The Players choose their battles, not the DM. At 20th level the PCs could seek out battle against single kobolds all day long, if they so choose. What they do is not the DMs' responsibility, it's there's. The Players choose their own fun.

PCs/Players treat battles as their "first encounter of the day" only if they desire to do more battles that day. Of course, as things progress, they might change their minds. IME, most PCs/Players aren't always looking for battle. Typically they enter dangerous lands, dungeons, etc. to achieve other self chosen objects (even if it's just for gold and cool stuff). Engaging in combat isn't necessary for such objectives, but it's a possibility. Given that, most players will prepare for battle, but actually seek to find alternate means to achieve what they want. That's strategy. Why fight 100 lizardsmeng when you can poison their water supply and still get the XP?

NPCs battling the PCs only face off if those characters choose to (though they might find running difficult depending). So DM Fiat is not forcing encounters on the PCs arbitrarily. That's poor DMing IMO. Foes the PCs do not encounter, but actually vice versa are the result of DMs roleplaying their NPCs. These then run, battle, negotiate, or whatever depending. That low level Wizard is very low Wis, if he is throwing his life away.
---Both those dependings based on personality, situation, goals/plans, etc.


To Philip's 1st post, Intelligent players should want to rest and recover whenever it is safe to do so. It's the safety element that often keeps folks from doing so. "Rest areas" aren't built into dungeons so the players can sleep and face their next 4 battles. That's just as boggling to me as if I forced a time commitment on them every single day to get those battles in. It's frustrating and nonsensical to the world.

My advice is DO NOT create any metagame understanding between you and the players about what they are supposed to do and what they can expect the Monsters to do. They can figure that out in character. Play the monsters as tough as their/your descriptions suggest and let the players win by their own ingenuity. They will seek out appropriate challenges based on their own judgments.

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't understand what you mean. Please explain.

Essentially the +20/+15/+10 BAB progressions in 3e are not the progressions followed in pre-d20 D&D. Look here for a better explanation.

EDIT: This +20 BAB over 30 levels is just a prediction as mentioned in Wulf's big thread.