Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Lurks-no-More]

In your opinion, are these people in the majority?

Yes. I think there are very few people, even among those who like D&D, who like everything about it; furthermore, I think that most of the people liking D&D in the whole are also liking parts of it which Raven Crowking may not like, and disliking parts he likes.

In other words, although his opinions and likes are valuable by themselves, I do not believe he is a representative example of all the people who like D&D. Personally, I like D&D, yet I do not see the addition of per-encounter abilities (and why does everyone seem to forget that there will still be per-day abilities, anyway?) as detrimental or somehow leading to the game no longer being D&D.

 

[DonTadow]

Yes. I think there are very few people, even among those who like D&D, who like everything about it; furthermore, I think that most of the people liking D&D in the whole are also liking parts of it which Raven Crowking may not like, and disliking parts he likes.

In other words, although his opinions and likes are valuable by themselves, I do not believe he is a representative example of all the people who like D&D. Personally, I like D&D, yet I do not see the addition of per-encounter abilities (and why does everyone seem to forget that there will still be per-day abilities, anyway?) as detrimental or somehow leading to the game no longer being D&D.

Dungeons and Dragons will always be dungeons and dragons. Adventures going inside of a dungeon and fighting bad guys. How this is done does not make dungeons and dragons. Per encounter is more natural than per day. Per encounter is easier to track for the DM and other players. It makes sure everyones on equal footing. No DM wants to say their players are cheats, but players are not accountants. Very few keep accurate track of things during game. A day may take 4 or 5 sessions. That's roughly about a month in game time. Every table i've been at, there's always a couple players whom handwave keeping track of what they can and can't do.

A DMs job is to be referee for the table. That means making sure that players are casting and performing things they can. In the current system, this means either noting every spell and its level and all the abilities of a player and keeping a running total every game. All this while managing encounters and redesigning the plot every 10 minutes. It sucks and is often ignored because there is just too much.

With an encounter approach for most things, the DM's job becomes a lot easier.

 

[shilsen]

In your opinion, are these people in the majority?

In my opinion, yes.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes. I think there are very few people, even among those who like D&D, who like everything about it...

Then may I suggest that you don't need a proof that there is a vocal minority of gamers who don't like and who have never liked D&D and would approve of D&D becoming less like it has always been in order to become more like something it isn't.

Hong little 'zinger' is only germane if he believes that there is a majority of players who fit that description. In effect he says, 'Prove that this group is in the minority'. I don't know whether he meant to say, but with Hong it really doesn't matter since he rarely does either. Since you don't believe that the D&D haters are a majority, then you should have no problem accepting that those players are a 'vocal minority'. Your own statement is more or less agreement with the notion of a 'vocal minority'.

Whether it is fair to lump Mallus into this minority is an entirely different question, which Hong's little 'zinger' didn't address. However, even if it isn't, its not that hard to come up with examples of comments on these boards of people who would be disappointed with 4e 'only if it didn't slay everyone of D&D's sacred cows'. Comments like that are very suggestive of the idea that they have never liked D&D and would like to see it replaced with something else.

Note further than RC didn't say anything about the character of the majority. Whether he thinks that the majority has opinions exactly like RC, I don't really know. Hong's little zinger wasn't, "Prove you have the majority opinion." I suspect however RC would lump himself into the group that wants to see change and evolution, just not a radical replacement of things that have worked for 30 years. Whether that is a majority I don't know, but it seems pretty close to what you assert - and I agree- is likely to be the majority.

RC is pretty hung up on per ecounter abilities, but that is hardly the only area of the game getting radical revision and he is hardly alone in his skepticism of 4e. On the other hand, I think he's well aware that as yet only about 30% (at most) have come out as disliking 4e.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Edit: Also, thirding Hong's request above.

No idea at all what hong's request refers to. After the millionth threadcrap, I stopped caring what he said.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes. I think there are very few people, even among those who like D&D, who like everything about it; furthermore, I think that most of the people liking D&D in the whole are also liking parts of it which Raven Crowking may not like, and disliking parts he likes.

I agree with that, actually. I certainly don't like everything about 3.0, 3.5, 2e, or 1e. However, I do not claim that I play D&D only because it is the easiest game to find players for, either. Far better, IMHO, to listen to people who enjoy the game -- whether their opinions reflect mine or not -- than those who avow that they do not.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC is pretty hung up on per ecounter abilities

Let me point out (again) that I use per-encounter abilities in my own homebrewed version of 3.x. I am not hung up on the idea of them, I simply don't believe that they will address the problems WotC claims they will. Moreover, I don't accept that the Vancian system is as limited as some would have us believe.

When well thought out, per-encounter abilties can really work well. When not as well thought out, they can seriously damage a game. The blog info I am reading thus far sounds more like the latter than the former, and it concerns me.

I would love to be wrong, however.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Whether it is fair to lump Mallus into this minority is an entirely different question, which Hong's little 'zinger' didn't address. However, even if it isn't, its not that hard to come up with examples of comments on these boards of people who would be disappointed with 4e 'only if it didn't slay everyone of D&D's sacred cows'. Comments like that are very suggestive of the idea that they have never liked D&D and would like to see it replaced with something else.

While your point is indicate that you really think of the so-called "Sacred Cows" as that. But other players and fans don't.

I definitely like D&D 3rd edition. I never played the previous editions, and I am not really interested in doing so. Maybe that disqualifies me entirely for being a D&D liker, but I just don't care about how D&D was 2 editions ago. I wasn't a roleplayer then. And I see no reason why my opinion should be worth less than those of people that did enjoy the 1st edition gameplay or feel.

For me, D&D 3rd edition was a modern and well-thought out system. But for all its positive aspects, there are still some things lacking. And these are exactly the things I see addressed in 4th edition. So for me, D&D is 3rd edition now, and will probably be also 4th edition next year.

 

[Celebrim]

Let me point out (again) that I use per-encounter abilities in my own homebrewed version of 3.x. I am not hung up on the idea of them, I simply don't believe that they will address the problems WotC claims they will.

I apologize for misrepresenting you then.

I agree that they do not address the problems WotC claims that they will.

 

[Celebrim]

While your point is indicate that you really think of the so-called "Sacred Cows" as that.

I think that there is a rather vast difference between wanting to see evolution, change, revision, and perhaps even the slaying of a sacred cow (I'm rather ambivalent toward the Vancian system, and am withholding judgement on a replacement until I see the mechanics) and publicly stating that you don't like D&D and won't like it until all of its sacred cows go and the more that they change the better.

But other players and fans don't.

There is a continium here. Neither myself nor RC like everything about any edition of D&D. I don't think I can name a poster that has stated that they like everything about any edition. On the other hand, there are posters here that have said that they dislike everything about D&D.

And I see no reason why my opinion should be worth less than those of people that did enjoy the 1st edition gameplay or feel.

No. But I think your opinion should count more than people who have never liked any edition of D&D, publicly show open hostility to the game and everything about it, and claim to only play it because they are forced to.