Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[timbannock]

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

All IMHO of course, but here goes:

Per encounter abilities make very little sense OTHER than as a completely metagame mechanic. How you explain that fluff-wise is beyond me.

Per day abilities can make some sense (within the Vancian-style magic system, or the "I need to pray for spells at such and such a time"), but even that is pretty wishy-washy as far as explanations go.

The flip-side -- everything's either "at will" or has a "recharge" time -- can either be way overpowered if done wrong, or involve lots of book-keeping (each ability's recharge time has to be tracked separately). But, the fluffy explanation is way easier.

All of that said, I think balancing each class based on them all having 3 "tiers" of abilities -- at will, per encounter, and per day -- will make balance easier to achieve and measure (or, for the DMs who like to house rule, easier to manipulate, too!). I'm all for that type of a system. I just can't see how you'd explain that in the game world:

"I'm sorry, I can't Whirlwind Attack these Trolls. If we run away and then re-encounter them a few minutes later, though, I'll be able to."

[Obviously, Whirlwind Attack may not be anything close to what's going into 4E, but really, insert anything maneuver wise that a Fighter can do and you still get the same result]

Just to clarify: I like the direction 4E is going rules-wise, but it definitely feels like "Here's an awesome, fast-playing, balanced tactical system...and uh, we'll worry about the whacky fluff inconsistencies afterward." What in the world is the in-character explanation for per encounter abilities for a Fighter or Rogue type character?

Weird thought: maybe all classes have access to some kind of magic, kind of like Earthdawn's "Adepts". That would be an easy way to explain it: hey, this maneuver requires "kewl fighter magic" and therefore recharges irregularly (i.e., per encounter).

Hmmm, I'd already noticed some Earthdawn-isms that had crept into 3E...maybe we'll see more of that in 4E?

 

[DonTadow]

Something good that is coming out of this is having general behaviors of how all of the classes act. There is no longer a huge learning curve between classes. The one thing that made my early d and d life sporadic was not really understanding other classes after playing my bard for so long.

 

[Cadfan]

"I'm sorry, I can't Whirlwind Attack these Trolls. If we run away and then re-encounter them a few minutes later, though, I'll be able to."

[Obviously, Whirlwind Attack may not be anything close to what's going into 4E, but really, insert anything maneuver wise that a Fighter can do and you still get the same result]

...sort of true, but not entirely. Remember, all 3 martial classes written so far in 3e which have per encounter abilities have some way to refresh them during the encounter. The Crusader does it automatically on a round by round basis. The Swordsage spends a round mentally preparing himself. And the Warblade spends a round attacking normally. All three of these make sense within the description of each character class.

Just to clarify: I like the direction 4E is going rules-wise, but it definitely feels like "Here's an awesome, fast-playing, balanced tactical system...and uh, we'll worry about the whacky fluff inconsistencies afterward." What in the world is the in-character explanation for per encounter abilities for a Fighter or Rogue type character?

If those per encounter abilities refreshed like those of a Swordsage or a Warblade, would it bother you as much?

 

[gizmo33]

If I only run 1 encounter / day, then the spellcasters are more powerful than they would be if I ran 4 encounters / day.

IMO this is not a per-day issue. This is something specific to the current set of DnD rules. Wizards and fighters could be balanced in a per-day set up as well.

The overall gist I'm getting at is that, within the genre or meta-genre it attempts to emulate (in D&D's case, heroic high-fantasy), a game is better served by including the fewest number of artificial gameplay style restrictions possible while still providing the options necessary to restore those restrictions for games in which it's appropriate.

The genre, AFAIK is not one where characters are commonly fighting more than one battle per day. Because of this, your reasoning here always strikes me as mixing genres - you accept the "DnDism" of fighting 4 or more battles in a day, and yet don't accept the other "DnDisms"

Also, the genre isn't too developed in terms of magic rules. I've brought this up before and someone will probably reference a bunch of books I've never heard of (I'm not that widely read in it anyway I guess). Also, when I ask questions I find that the "detail" of the magic system isn't all that detailed anyway. Basically, you can't design a magic rule system around fantasy literature IMO because fantasy literature is notoriously hazy about the workings of magic. It's used as a plot device or the characters in the book just don't think to do certain things that the players would do. A magic system for a *game* needs to stand up to rules lawyers whereas a one for books does not.

Conan just doesn't fight all day (ex. the end of Phoenix on the Sword). Please explain why he doesn't count. Frodo has to rest and heal after being stabbled by the Morgul blade. I guess he doesn't count either. What exactly counts as the "genre"? Is it comic book/anime stuff?

Also I'd be curious for an example of "healing magic" used in the genre. At all. Pushing my luck, I'd then be curious about unlimited healing magic.

 

[DonTadow]

The one a day system for major functions forces us to have to use the "sleep in the dungeon" thing. Which wascute in the 70s but its so idiotic as we have more exposure to good fiction. Outside of dungeons and dragons related novels, what books have their party members sleep in a dungeon. Is a dungeon that big that it takes 16 hours to maneuver through. A battle only lasts 2 minutes, so why is it taking so long.

For 33 years d and d players kept the day limitation around because there was nothing more innovationaly better, until once per encounter rolled a round.

Reducing the one a days to either only one 1aday that the PC is not dependant on makes a heckof a lot more sense.

 

[gizmo33]

The one a day system for major functions forces us to have to use the "sleep in the dungeon" thing. Which wascute in the 70s but its so idiotic as we have more exposure to good fiction.

What about the system makes you sleep in the dungeon!? If you don't want to continue exploring the dungeon because you might get killed, how in the world is sleeping there anything other than suicidal? I agree with the part about "idiotic" but otherwise I'm not sure we're recognizing the same thing. What is this good fiction you're talking about? And what fiction from the 70s had people sleeping in dungeons? (except when the dungeon was, in fact, a prison) In fact, does good fiction talk about people sleeping at all? Wouldn't that be boring? Do novels and the game really have to match up like that? Reading about people eating is boring, so will the 4E rules remove the concept of characters having to eat from the rules?

 

[Celebrim]

Outside of dungeons and dragons related novels, what books have their party members sleep in a dungeon.

Lord of the Rings?

And, I seem to remember the Bilbo and company camping for a long time on a Dragon's doorstep. And quite a bit of both books is, "We are injured and we've lost are stuff. Where is the nearest place to camp/resupply for a few days safely?"

This 'D&D doesn't match my image if the genera' bit is getting a little tiresome already.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

IMO this is not a per-day issue. This is something specific to the current set of DnD rules. Wizards and fighters could be balanced in a per-day set up as well.

But they haven't been in this edition, and I think they haven't been in the past editions, either. So, if you can come up with a good per-day system, do it.
But even if you could, I think there are still a lot of good reasons for prefering the "per encounter" approach. Mostly because it interferes a lot less with the "speed" at which you want your adventure to move.

And yes, people in stories rest, too. But the need for rest is typically arbitrarily chosen by the creator of the story. Typically it is after an important event in the story, a point where not only the characters, but also the author and the reader/viewer feels a need for rest.
It's never that you can watch a movie and say "Oh, that were 6 fights Bruce Willis had this day, I guess he will need some sleep now". And often enough, people in stories go on even if tired, and they prevail (and usually not by constanly missing their targets with a crossbow, as a D&D wizard would do when he is "tired". Gandalf might rarely cast spells, but when he fights with his sword and staff, he is _effective_.)

 

[gizmo33]

But they haven't been in this edition, and I think they haven't been in the past editions, either. So, if you can come up with a good per-day system, do it.

Whether or not I do something is not relevant to the discussion AFAICT. It seems to me simpler just to concede the point than change the subject.

But even if you could, I think there are still a lot of good reasons for prefering the "per encounter" approach. Mostly because it interferes a lot less with the "speed" at which you want your adventure to move.

This is a matter of taste. An all-encounter-resources set-up interferes with the speed at which I want the adventure to move because it actually imposes no sensible restrictions on it. PCs can begin the adventure as farm boys, blow up the deathstar, kill vader, and party with ewoks and still have time for lunch (which they won't eat because that would interfere with the speed at which the DM wants the adventure to move).

I'm sure by now we're not going to agree on this aspect of it. I find what you all are saying about the 'genre' to be unrecognizable. I don't understand at all how you're going to stop PCs from killing things and levelling up 24-7 other than heavy-handed DM fiat ("you just rest, don't ask why!")

And yes, people in stories rest, too. But the need for rest is typically arbitrarily chosen by the creator of the story.

I disagree with this. I don't think the need for rest is chosen. The *description* of the resting process is what is chosen. Like those little montages where Indiana Jones flies across the world, the movie doesn't depict him sleeping every day - though I think it's reasonable to assume that he does.

Also, for example, the part in 13th warrior where their standing around drinking mead after one of the battles - by the body language of the characters they are exhausted, but there's no talk of "hit points" or anything, so you're left to conclude (reasonably IMO) that the characters would not be heading out that night to go find and kill the bad guys, even though this decision making process is not described in any detail. But in an all-encounter-resources situation, the idea of standing around and resting/drinking mead when you could be killing bad guys instead would make no sense at all.

There's very little explict mention of gravity in any fantasy story, but one assumes its there because otherwise weird things would happen. Resting AFAICT is often handled in the same way.

Typically it is after an important event in the story, a point where not only the characters, but also the author and the reader/viewer feels a need for rest.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Reading about someone resting is not any more relaxing than reading about them fighting a cave troll. Also, I don't think that the author assumes that the frequency with which he *describes* situations of resting reflects some sort of fantasy universe logic. (Does Frodo ever say "hey guys, remember that time we had to sleep? Was that last Tuesday? That was strange. I didn't want to stop and sleep. I wonder why that keeps happening?)

It's never that you can watch a movie and say "Oh, that were 6 fights Bruce Willis had this day, I guess he will need some sleep now".

So the alternative would be that Bruce Willis is seen lining up to run a marathon at the end of the Die Hard movies?! Because DnD characters would certainly do that, and even more ridiculous things. Die Hard ends because the director/writer says it does. I am not so heavy handed as a DM that I am comfortable with forcing my players to stop adventuring just to keep things from getting insane.

What seems to be missing from the reasoning is that IME players will do everything with their characters that they can possibly do. If you remove a restriction like fatigue, or it's equivalent, from the game then I think it would produce some ridiculous results. The difference between DnD and Die Hard in this instance is an important one. The author of a novel/movie completely manipulates and controls the events. The DM is *not* in the position to do the same (given that the DM conforms to a pretty broad range of play styles).

And often enough, people in stories go on even if tired, and they prevail (and usually not by constanly missing their targets with a crossbow, as a D&D wizard would do when he is "tired". Gandalf might rarely cast spells, but when he fights with his sword and staff, he is _effective_.)

Gandalf IMO is a bad example of resource management. He doesn't act anything like a PC wizard. He's not even around for the significant part of the adventure. His character is an NPC, and really a favored DM one at that. Most of what he does is based on author's fiat, and there's nothing sensible IMO to be gleaned from his character's capabilities. IMO there's no sensible game mechanic that can be deduced from the way he acts. AFAIK he doesn't really discuss his spell casting capabilities, or what restrictions he must follow (which incidently, is an example of why I consider the "genre" arguments on this topic to be overstated)

PCs who have lost hitpoints ("tired" in novel/movie terms) prevail all of the time.

Other than Tim the Enchanter from Monty Python, I don't know of a wizard character who blasts away with force missles for round after round. I'm not sure how effective Gandalf was with his sword - I'm pretty sure a low-level wizard in DnD could kill a few goblins with a sword.

 

[DonTadow]

What about the system makes you sleep in the dungeon!? If you don't want to continue exploring the dungeon because you might get killed, how in the world is sleeping there anything other than suicidal? I agree with the part about "idiotic" but otherwise I'm not sure we're recognizing the same thing. What is this good fiction you're talking about? And what fiction from the 70s had people sleeping in dungeons? (except when the dungeon was, in fact, a prison) In fact, does good fiction talk about people sleeping at all? Wouldn't that be boring? Do novels and the game really have to match up like that? Reading about people eating is boring, so will the 4E rules remove the concept of characters having to eat from the rules?

Lets break down the system a bit. It'll help me point out some of the flaws with the sleeping in the dungeon bit and why it is a neccesary part of 3.5 and before that i won't miss.

The system now, if you have a spell caster in the party, is geared around the camping in the dungeon and "one a day" system. Spellcasters are often faced with being quiet in combat, exhausting their spells or being a poor man's archer. If the spellcaster decides to be active, they have to cast spells. After every combat, spellcasters are constantly asked by party members how many spells they have for the game. Suddenly we break from the role playing game to a euro accounting game. In order for a spellcaster to be prepared for the next encounter, they have to rest, they are the only class that has to rest. Because of this, we had to have another bad invention, the wandering monster. The biggest time waster in a game is the combat invented to pester the party while they are resting in the dungeon to show the pcs that the dungeon is dangerous.

When and d first came about, there wasn't a lot of thought put into all the nuts and bolts. Sleeping in a Dungeon made since (though in lotr they set up camp... and had large parties to protect the camp site, much different than the 3 people rest and one person watch system in dungeons and dragons.

IN any case it became standard as part of the game. As fantasy writing expanded in the 80s + so came people's idea of what fantasy is, and few novels and media had people sleeping in the place they were adventuring. They adventured there and went home. In video and computer games, this is just as prevalent.

I think the 9 to 9 :15 analolgy really gave a good example of the flaws. It just doesn't take that long to explore a dungeon, and if the reason for you exploring that dungeon is dire enough, u probaby don't want to be wasting time on the job.