Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[howandwhy99]

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?).

Per Day abilities may be uninteresting in Rolemaster, but I prefer how they operated in D&D: Spells as highly powerful, but infrequently used. The idea that there will be fewer, but more powerful spells is actually something I'm hoping for in 4th. The "at will" "spells" I can easily change back to what they were previously and mechanically probably will be anyways: simple weapons.

The interesting strategies you mention are all still there with a Per Day system. In addition, spell selection is also added into the mix.

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 . . .)

You're right here. I overstated my position. Strategic thinking merely adds in again spell usage.

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.)

In an adventure game adversity means planning. Or kick in the door hack and slash. Neither is required, but Per Day spells emphasize the utility in forethought and strategy.

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.

It's not knowing when to run. Strategy occurs before combat begins. Planning involves role assumption because it puts you into character for goal setting. It is the out-of-combat play that still keeps combat relevant.

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.

By plots you mean character planning? There won't ever be character plans that aren't limited by resources. The designers have said combat won't be unlimited for every day. I didn't see any references to specific plots in that post, but I may be missing a bit in not reading 1400 posts.

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.

Role assumption occurs both within and outside of combat. Resource management encourages it outside of combat when relevant to combat.

Hero Points, and the like, are actually antithetical to roleplaying. The are not about "gaming the world", but "gaming the system". They are not representative of anything in the world, but for players to play a Meta aspect of the rules - something they should not know anyways.

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!

I'm completely misunderstanding you here. Not what you have written, but that, somehow, there are people who want to play a game, but not have their skill at playing that game tested. Is that an accurate interpretation of what you are saying?

Games test skill. Roleplaying test one's ability to roleplay. Roleplaying Games test both. If I understand you correctly, you are referring to people who want to roleplay, but not game. These folks have no need of rules then. The game aspect is only going to obstruct them from doing what they want to do.

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".

Is this such a horrible thing? Is this a result of hours long combat agonizingly painful in 3e? Miss your turn in pre-d20 and it comes up a minute or two later. It's not that big of a deal. Not to mention that just because PCs don't have a special "power" to use every round does not preclude PCs from taking other actions.

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.

I do play OD&D and run 3.5. "Operational play" as you say is still possible in 3e. It may not be in 4th. The fact that this playstyle has been part of D&D for 33 years makes me wish it, and 80% of the player base, kept it as an option.

Of the two types of character design you define, I'm more of the 1st of course. The second removes the opportunity for roleplay/immersion in the game. I can handwave aspects if I choose to, but I don't want them built in.

I disagree that the 2nd approach is more mechanically balanced. That is mechanical Illusionism - the idea that only the actions defined within the system will ever be taken by users of that system. RPGs have always been the exception to games which take such highly systemic approaches. Chainmail and D&D were/are not "light" games in terms of rules, but they are very broad with a "beer & pretzels" approach. Heavy Sim is not what I'm suggesting and yet having massive mechanics is what 3e & perhaps 4th deliver.

And for automatic combat skills presupposing combat, again, this is an adventure game. D&D limits players by being such. If they do not want adventure, then it is not the game for them. Combat may never even be necessary depending on how adventures are approached, but the idea PCs improve at combat abilities is easily accounted for by using training rules.

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?

I'm not suggesting foolish fidelity to system. I'm saying they are moving away from their core players, and the biggest draw of the game, all of which they brought back with "back to the dungeon" game/gamism design for 3e. I'm glad they shook off the false ideas of 2e with roleplaying as good and challenging play as bad. Going to what may amount to a Skirmish Miniatures game, where whatever happens outside of combat has no relevance to combat, is an unwise idea IMO. It misses why RPGs originated in the first place.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Waves of enemies should be standard in a dungeon crawl!

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.

Im sold on that idea... I am currently upset at the model of "open the door, kill whats inside, go to the next door, repeat"

For crying out loud, its supposed to be mortal combat, with swords banging against armor/chitin/thick hide, with cries of pain or grunts of effort from swinging a greataxe... this without mentioning loud bangs, eldritch incantations at the top of the wizard's lungs, weird lights and smells...

How come the hobgoblins in room H2 don't realize their colleages in room H1 are being slaughtered!???

 

[Reynard]

How come the hobgoblins in room H2 don't realize their colleages in room H1 are being slaughtered!???

Because the DM isn't very good.

I mean, good grief, the adventures all the way back to 1E made the very specific point of saying that the orcs in room 1b will engage players who make to much noise rumaging through the kitchen in room 4c.

There's so much misinformation, misremembering and downright negative lies about "traditional" or "old school" D&D playstyles that it is no wonder that some people are clamoring for 4E where the mean, nasty DM can't abuse them anymore.

I mean, really, did anyone ever actually play that way with a DM like that for more than 1 session, halfway through which all the players picked up their dice and gave him the old one fingered wave?

 

[Mallus]

In addition, spell selection is also added into the mix.

And for some people that's as welcome an addition as anchovies to a chocolate sunday.

Neither is required, but Per Day spells emphasize the utility in forethought and strategy.

Unfortunately, that 'strategy' often devolves into trying to second-guess the DM and/or the given adventure, at least in the campaigns I'm familiar with.

By plots you mean character planning?

I'm guessing by 'plots' he means 'plots', as in the narrative action going on involving and around the player characters; stuff like 'rebellion against the evil tyrant' and the 'daring rescue attempt to return the king's daughter'.

Hero Points, and the like, are actually antithetical to roleplaying.

Only for certain values of roleplaying. Wait, not even then.

The are not about "gaming the world", but "gaming the system".

They're a resource, nothing more, nothing less.

They are not representative of anything in the world...

And you think that is a requirement why? The world, in this case, is a fictional space. Hero points are small amount of narrative authority over said fictional world --beyond the control the players already have over their characters. Some games aren't simulations of physical places, they're simulations of narrative ones; the worlds in books and films. Some aren't simulations at all.

Not what you have written, but that, somehow, there are people who want to play a game, but not have their skill at playing that game tested.

Ever play a Japanese console RPG?

Games test skill. Roleplaying test one's ability to roleplay. Roleplaying Games test both.

Or they test neither. Or, more often, they test the players ability to read the DM's mind and ascertain what he or she thinks is good strategy.

Personally, I gave up priding myself on 'smart RPG play' a long time ago. There wasn't any remotely objective way to determine it, unlike in the game like chess. To one DM I was a terrifically clever player, to another, well below average. Now, I play to have fun and entertain as many of my fellow players as I can. At least I can get reliable metrics on that.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<cut to later post>

Going to what may amount to a Skirmish Miniatures game, where whatever happens outside of combat has no relevance to combat, is an unwise idea IMO.

I don't accept that per-encounter resources make player choice inconsequential. As an example, sustainable Adrenal Moves in RM (per RMC IV) and HARP are a roughly per-encounter resource, and the player choice as to when to enter the move, and when to come out of it, is highly consequential. It's just that the consequence unfolds within the encounter itself.

I also do not accept the notion that because resources reset after an encounter, "whatever happens outside of combat has no relevance to combat." Suppose that, outside of combat, the PCs attempt to recruit an ally and fail. That has relevance to combat. Suppose that, outside of combat, the PCs fail to persuade the guards to let them pass. That has relevance to combat (perhaps being a cause of it).

The interesting strategies you mention are all still there with a Per Day system. In addition, spell selection is also added into the mix.

Not all interesting strategies flourish in a per-day system, because the need to conserve resources can get in the way. This will particularly be the case if implementing the strategy would (in 3E terms) require succeeding at more than 4 EL=PL encounters in a row. Of course it is possible for the GM to create a gameworld in which this is not the case. But it's not obvious to me that the players' or GM's creative desires are the things that should have to give here.

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.

<cut to later post>

Games test skill. Roleplaying test one's ability to roleplay. Roleplaying Games test both. If I understand you correctly, you are referring to people who want to roleplay, but not game. These folks have no need of rules then. The game aspect is only going to obstruct them from doing what they want to do.

I don't really follow what you mean by "skill" and "roleplay". For example, winning a high-level combat in 3E tests the following skill: how well do you know the mechanics, and especially the character build mechanics (so you have a decent character), the combat mechanics, and the spell mechanics.

Succeeding at Tomb of Horrors tests a completely different skill: how well can you conceive of, and plan, a grinding expedition into hostile territory. From memory, Tomb of Horrors has about 4 combats - and the final one barely follows the standard combat rules in any event. Someone could play a PC in Tomb of Horrors, and do very well, without having the least grasp of the (sparse) action resolution rules of AD&D.

Operational play tends to test the second sort of skill (under its more pejorative description, it is therefore described as "reading the mind of the GM").

The sort of mechanical play that per-encounter abilities (such as sustained Adrenal Moves) give rise to tests the first sort of skill.

The success of 3E, which has bucketloads of mechanics but downplays the operational side, suggests that some players at least want to use the second sort of skill.

That is mechanical Illusionism - the idea that only the actions defined within the system will ever be taken by users of that system. RPGs have always been the exception to games which take such highly systemic approaches.

RM, RQ and HARP aspire to what you describe as "mechanical illusionism." 3E seems to come very close to it. Whether it makes for a good or bad game I will leave for others to judge, but I don't think it is fair to say that RPGs are an exception to it.

Undoubtedly, AD&D and other early versions of D&D are exceptions. 4e may be a limited exception (given the mooted absence of craft and profession from the character build rules). But given that they are working on social challenge mechanics and environmental challenge mechanics and trap encounter mechanics, I don't think it will be an exception in any of the domains of activity that PCs typically engage in.

Turning to roleplay, this can mean all sorts of things, but probably at a minimum it requires treating ones PC as a character in a world (this is a matter of degree, of course, but it marks the difference between an RPG and a wargame). The extent to which mechanics interact with roleplay, in this sense, varies a great deal from system to system. In AD&D, because of the sparsity of the character build mechanics, most of the roleplaying is independent of the mechanics. In 3E (which is in this respect closer to RQ or RM) the ruleset purports to give a total description of the character, and so roleplay is closely tied to the character build and action resolution mechanics. 4e on the whole will continue this trend, I think (though not entirely, if craft and profession skills are no longer part of the character build rules).

Planning involves role assumption because it puts you into character for goal setting.

<snip>

Role assumption occurs both within and outside of combat. Resource management encourages it outside of combat when relevant to combat.

For many players, what encourages roleplay both within and out is that they want to play out a PC's intereactions with the gameworld - perhaps because they want to develop a certain plot, or explore a certain theme, or have fun blowing things up.

I don't see that resource management particular encourages roleplaying. It does encourage the player to set goals and plan around them, but on its own this is no different from playing a wargame campaign.

By plots you mean character planning? There won't ever be character plans that aren't limited by resources.

By "plot" I mean something like "sequence of events in a narrative" - in the context of an RPG, I mean basically the stuff that happens to the PCs.

Hero Points, and the like, are actually antithetical to roleplaying. The are not about "gaming the world", but "gaming the system". They are not representative of anything in the world, but for players to play a Meta aspect of the rules - something they should not know anyways.

Why should players not know the rules? If they are to exercise their skill with the rules they must know them. And I don't really follow your objection to metagame mechanics - basically, these are devices for allowing the players to determine certain aspects of the in-game reality. I assume you don't object to character-build mechanics which (outside of RQ and Traveller, where it's just about rolling dice that simulate in-game processes) are essentially metagame mechanics that allow the players to shape a certain aspect of the gameworld - namely, their PC. Hero Points are just metagame mechanics on the action resolution, rather than the character build, side of things. If such mechanics (as is typically the case) are designed in such a way that players are able to exercise such control only when developing or resolving certain plots or themes that they have chosen to explore through their character, then such mechanics can contribute significantly to roleplaying.

I would also have thought that Hero Points fit very much with your "players are responsible for their own fun" philosophy.

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. Players choose their battles, not the DM.

<snip>

The Players choose their own fun.

I know that if my players wanted to battle single kobolds all day long they could not, as I do not have any adventures involving kobolds written up. In practice, I think most RPG groups come to the table with a broad understanding of what sort of activity the players want their PCs to engage in, and the way in which the GM will provide those opportunities.

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.

This might be good advice for a group who have no time limit on their playing, who are happy to spend many hours having their PCs killed as they discover the way the world works, and who are prepared to devote days or years of play to learning how their GM's mind works.

For many groups of players and GMs, none of the above conditions hold, let alone all of them.

PCs/Players treat battles as their "first encounter of the day" only if they desire to do more battles that day.

PCs may or not treat a battle as their "first encounter of the day" depending on what in-game knowledge they have about the way the day is likely to unfold.

In a system of per-day resoruces, players will treat a battle as the "first encounter of the day" when they are hoping, or expecting, to play out more battles at the game table without their PCs recovering per-day resources. In a system of per-encounter resources, players will treat a battle as the "first encounter of the day" when they are hoping, or expecting, to make choices which lead to the result in-game that their PCs engage in more battles. The resource-management constraint on player decision-making will be absent. For some play styles this may be a bad thing, for others a desirable thing.

Finally, some miscellanea:

The "at will" "spells" I can easily change back to what they were previously and mechanically probably will be anyways: simple weapons.

I don't know about the "at will" abilities for fighters or mages. The per-encounter abilities, however, I suspect will not be easily treated as weapons as far as flavour-text goes.

The
the idea PCs improve at combat abilities is easily accounted for by using training rules

I don't see how this device can't equally well be used to explain any other PC ability that is acquired despite its acquisition not being explained by the in-game events actually played out at the table.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Per Day abilities may be uninteresting in Rolemaster, but I prefer how they operated in D&D: Spells as highly powerful, but infrequently used.

<snip>

Miss your turn in pre-d20 and it comes up a minute or two later. It's not that big of a deal. Not to mention that just because PCs don't have a special "power" to use every round does not preclude PCs from taking other actions.

In many D&D games, combat takes up the bulk of the time at the table. The concern with PC balance is therefore not one of in-game usefulness, it's one of player participation in the game at the table.

For most players of wizard PCs, use of spells or items is their only capacity to meaningfully participate in a combat.

Hence, the concern for balanced and interested combat abilities that reduce the need for any player to "miss a turn".

 

[SavageRobby]

I started on the per-day side of this debate, but the more I think about it and think about how my favorite system (Savage Worlds) deals with it, the less I like (conceptually, at least) a strict per-day paradigm. I like the strategic implications of limited resources over a given period of time - currently being discussed as days - and I definitely don't like what I perceive will be the lessening of that strategy (in favor of more tactical considerations) with more per-encounter resources.


The best of both worlds, I think, is the Savage Worlds model (and used by many other systems as well) - a recharging power point model. It contains both strategic implications ("if I blow a lot of power points now, it will take time for me to recharge them, and we might be vulnerable") as well as tactical ones ("should I lock the door, levitate the bad guy or fireball the mooks?") Power points recharge on a limited basis (1 per hour, with starting characters having 10 PP - and I increase PP recharged while resting or sleeping).

The system has another interesting strategic aspect - typically you can only heal damage taken (SW uses a limited # of wounds, not HP) within the "golden hour" - an hour after the damage was taken. So you can't necessarily wait until your healer has fully recharged to get fully healed and go out again, because its very possible by the time your healer has recharged their PP, you're past the Golden Hour.



I'd very much like to see something that combines the strategic and tactical aspects of resource management in the new version. I'd really like to see a unified "power" mechanic (or ki, mana, nerve, bank, whatever - which I've heard a little talk of, but haven't read much about) that each character has that powers all of their spells and special abilities. So rather than having a big sheet that you have to tick off each per/day or per/encounter or per/blue moon or per/since I last flossed my cat ability, each character has one main central resource to track, and all of their non-at will powers use. And that central resource should recharge at a steady rate during the day, possibly charging more while sleeping or resting, or when taking certain actions (sacrifices, prayers, whatever) - and possibly even have a "rest after encounter" mechanic that automatically sets you back to a certain % of your power points if you are below that level at the conclusion of any encounter.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Because the DM isn't very good.

I mean, good grief, the adventures all the way back to 1E made the very specific point of saying that the orcs in room 1b will engage players who make to much noise rumaging through the kitchen in room 4c.

And the party could handle that. Try unloading the dungeon from Three Faces of Evil on a party all at once. Or the Temple of Elemental Evil. Or even The Sunless Citadel. 3E just isn't built for that. Either the party has to be composed entirely of ninjas, or else the DM has to fudge things so that the scuffle in room 1 doesn't bring down rooms 2 through 30 on the party's head. Neither is an ideal solution. Better to give PCs more staying power from the get-go, so that they can survive half a dungeon worth of orcs if they use smart tactics to limit attrition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

3E just isn't built for that.

That's true.

A lot of the innovations of 3e caused unexpected, and unintentional, problems. I expect the same from the complete refit that will be 4e.

In retrospect, especially with the dissection of 3e and the 4e rumours, I am amazed at how well balanced Gary's system really was. Mind you, I still really enjoy 3e, especially my homebrewed, "fixed for my purposes" version of it. But, 1e already had fast prep, fast combat, no requirement for Christmas trees or golf bags, fast character generation, and so on. I would rather see a 4e that took what worked from 3e and grafted it back onto 1e than what we are seeing now.

RC

 

[howandwhy99]

And for some people that's as welcome an addition as anchovies to a chocolate sunday.

Why have you submitted to playing D&D all all this time?

Unfortunately, that 'strategy' often devolves into trying to second-guess the DM and/or the given adventure, at least in the campaigns I'm familiar with.

Don't play DM-driven games.

I'm guessing by 'plots' he means 'plots', as in the narrative action going on involving and around the player characters; stuff like 'rebellion against the evil tyrant' and the 'daring rescue attempt to return the king's daughter'.

See just previous...

Only for certain values of roleplaying. Wait, not even then.

I'd say Hong does this better than you, but, really? Where is your rebuttal?

They're a resource, nothing more, nothing less.

And you think that is a requirement why? The world, in this case, is a fictional space. Hero points are small amount of narrative authority over said fictional world --beyond the control the players already have over their characters. Some games aren't simulations of physical places, they're simulations of narrative ones; the worlds in books and films. Some aren't simulations at all.

Something that has no representation in the world means one must take themselves out of character to "game the system". It's simply bad design for games meant to involve roleplaying.

Ever play a Japanese console RPG?

No. Is that D&D's new customer base?

Or they test neither. Or, more often, they test the players ability to read the DM's mind and ascertain what he or she thinks is good strategy.

Personally, I gave up priding myself on 'smart RPG play' a long time ago. There wasn't any remotely objective way to determine it, unlike in the game like chess. To one DM I was a terrifically clever player, to another, well below average. Now, I play to have fun and entertain as many of my fellow players as I can. At least I can get reliable metrics on that.

Reading the mind of the GM - When the GM decides no consistency of rules are required to run his world/character. In fact, no rules are necessary whatsoever as coherency is not part of the game. What results is never predictable by anyone, probably not even by the GM.

How incredibly frustrating a game would that be? It would be like trying to understand our own Earth, but to have absolutely nothing rationally discernible about it.

Roleplaying added rules for the GM role; one might even say they were added SPECIFICALLY for GMs to have an understandable, consistent world.

Regardless, all rules are entirely within the province of the DM. They are his character to play.