Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jackelope King" data-source="post: 3767502" data-attributes="member: 31454">From another thread, I asked:And I recieved this response:However, discussion of this point would have dragged the other thread even further off-topic, so I'll start this one.The reason why I asked this question was because a common complaint I've observed leveled against the "complexity" of 3.Xe (whether you accept this complexity or not) is that it has "too much stuff".This usually isn't in reference to non-core options. This is more a concern that a particular gamer doesn't like the idea of something like feats or skills in a game. I'm going to generalize and say that this is something I've seen more among the grognards, but there are plenty of breeds of grognard around these boards.The complaint usually goes something like, "Why does the game force X upon me? Why can't it let me decide how to handle X on my own?"It's an interesting point, and one which I brought up in my question above. We were discussing whether or not a per-encounter design better handled some problems than the per-day encounter design did (and as I found out, specifically the "9:00-9:15 AM adventure"). It was the opinion of those critical of the per-encounter design (among other things) that the exclusion of the per-day resource management system negatively impacted D&D. It was the opinion of others (myself included) that the inclusion of this per-day resource management system that hurt the game. I think it's largely a difference in playstyle, but the idea I present echoes the call of grognards for a simpler D&D, in a way.RC, among others, agreed that the per-day resource system adds a restriction to D&D. Admittedly, for them and many others for the past 33 years, it's been a fun one. This restriction forces players to think carefully about how they expend their resources, and manage their remaining abilities (usually spells) carefully, lest they get overwhelmed later on. And this sort of tactical gameplay and resource management is just plain fun. In essence, it's a part (I am paraphrasing RC's and others' arguments here, so I ask them to correct me if I am misrepresenting their position).My position is that the restriction of the per-day resource system, while not universally bad (33 years of D&D is a fair argument against that), is indeed bad for certain playstyles (mine included). I dislike the restriction that a per-day resource system puts on my games, especially when I want to deviate greatly from the recomended 4 average encounters / day (or the permutations thereof). If I only run 1 encounter / day, then the spellcasters are more powerful than they would be if I ran 4 encounters / day. If, on the other hand, I run more than 4 encounters, the spellcasters start to peter out and the non-casters seem comparatively stronger. Everything pivots around this (in my mind artificial) balance of 4 average encounters / day.I believe that the game would be better served with fewer rules-related restrictions on gameplay style. Class restrictions made it impossible to play a dwarven wizard back in the day, which may be perfectly viable in someone's game world somewhere, tended to stifle creativity and enforce a certain artificial gameplay style. Dropping these was largely greeted with cheers when 3e came around, which said, "Now your dwaves can be wizards, but if you liked the old way, you can still say dwarves can't be wizards. But now you get to make the choice."This is how I'd like to see gameplay-restrictive elements like attrition handled. Per-encounter lends itself to a certain style of gameplay which is perfectly justified in light of the meta-genre D&D attempts to recreate at the gametable, just as per-day is. However, since per-day tends to be more limiting in terms of what it allows, and since it is possible to reintroduce attrition back into the game "on top of" per-encounter resources as an extra of sorts. "Now you don't have to be limited to four average encounters per day because of attrition, but if you liked the old way, you can still bring attrition back. But now you get to make the choice."However, since I'm quite aware that simpling writing "Dwarves cannot be wizards" in your houserules is considerably easier than "Resources suffer attrition at such a rate that players can expect to be drained after 4 average-difficult encounters", I would advocate the inclusion (in the DMG or the next UA or somesuch) of a system which outlines how to bring that feeling back. Perhaps it's just as simple as "change the recharge time on all 'per-encounter' abilities to 'per-day' and reduce the level of the slot required to cast it by one".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. In essence, if it limits the number of gameplay styles within the appropriate meta-genre, then it shouldn't be part of the baseline rules, but should instead be supported as an optional restriction to be added into the rules. The ruleset should be robust and complete enough to support many different playstyles within a genre, but not so overwhelming that it inhibits genre-appropriate playstyles from the game.</blockquote>

Verification