This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[Hussar]

The podcast seems to only be available via iTunes at the moment. The second it's up on Feedburner, I'm all over it, like an otyugh on poo.

I just listen to it on the WOTC site: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20070907e15

The 4e marketing strategy of negatively selling against 3e rings hollow to me on almost every level. I don't think 3e is perfect (no game is, and 4e won't be either), but my players and I have been having a hell of a lot of fun with 3e & OGL games. I don't think we were playing the game incorrectly all this time.

Ummm, what? You've never seen these criticisms of 3e before now? Really? I could easily find thread after thread complaining about EXACTLY this point stretching back for years. It's not like this is suddenly a new issue. Sure, maybe your group didn't have these issues (to be fair, mine didn't particularly either) but, that doesn't mean that these issues don't exist.

It is not negative selling to point to possible weak areas in a product and then point to how they've improved these areas. David Noonan makes a specific point of this in the podcast, saying that nothing they are doing now invalidates your game in any way shape or form.

 

[Phlebas]

back to the OP

It can happen that the party run into a tough fight and want to recuperate. bad luck it happened first off. If it happens continuously then either the encounters are so tough they feel they have to go through everything in one hit, or the players are just used to burning everything at once because they know they'll go and rest now. IMHO, without knowing the situation, that doesn't sound like a fun game but different games, different people and no offense meant

IMC, its city based and so we don't often have long dungeon crawls. occasionally the party runs away to regroup, but thats not an issue. they briefly talked about locking themselves into a room in a dungeon to recuperate but they know i will mobilise the intelligent monsters left against them so wisely decided against it. Recently i've been putting them through a series of mini-adventures in quick succession so they haven't had time to rest - its been either now or never (3/4 successful, one got away) and that's been fun to watch (& play i hope)

Where i play, theres one campaign where we do seem to pull back and rest several times before completing the adventure. Personally i don't like it, but the rest of the party will not go forward after they run low on heal spells which I can't really argue with. I don't think the DM has a lot of choices due to the fact its a published AP so we just live with it. the best bits though have been where we can't recuperate and we've had to carry on fighting / running retreat and get that kick from succeeding with no spells, 50% hit points and few items left.

a few weeks ago we took out a bunch of giants (party level 10), the cleric lobbed a flame strike, several heals and a couple of other spells into the mix. Then started talking about going home. At this stage my wizard pointed out that he'd only used 3 spells all encounter (Grease, Summon 3, acid arrow) and he'd quite like to continue. Not boasting but it is all about how you use the spells and i do make a point of trying to use low level spells first and saving the best until last. admittedly the flame strike made a big difference (5 giants affected) so I'm not criticising the Players choice, but its not necessary to use biggest spell, all the time and the blam, blam rest philosophy makes the other character types less useful as it becomes all about the spell casters. Plus its pretty dull....

on 'per encounter' abilities. not sure if i'm that keen on these. IMHO either make them at will - eg give a wizard low level blasts at will if you want him always to do something or force the party to resource manage. I'll leave that discussion to the 4E board though

 

[Wolv0rine]

I HIGHLY recommend listening to the Podcast. It will answer almost all the questions in this thread nicely. They KNOW that allowing a wizard to do his thing all day long won't work. The example they give is getting up at 9 am, adventuring to 5 pm and gaining 8 levels. It doesn't work.

AND THEY KNOW IT.

Come on, these are the same guys that have been writing 3e books for the past several years. If you like PHB2, Tome of Magic et al, then why do you suddenly think they're going to widdle all over the game?

But... I didn't like the PH2, Tome of Magic, and especially Book of 9 Swords. Am I allowed to think they're going to widdle all over the game?

And, I think it's a shame that the guy up-thread who put down that long post about combat exhaustion/stress exhaustion/stress weardown/etc didn't get anything in the way of notice. It was the best post in the thread, IMHO. He not only gave an argument I found myself agreeing with (when I thought my stance wasn't in agreement with him to begin with), but he gave examples and reasons as for his stance on the OP's issue. While I do agree that one generally will be UNABLE to get that 8 hours of restful sleep after an hour or two or adventuring because.. well... you've just had your night's sleep haven't you... you WILL be needing some R&R to get back into useful form, or you're going to crash.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I agree. I read it as everyone is going to be special now, all the time.

Me? I don't like that design philosophy.

Everyone is special, all the time. Because each one is in a different way special.

The Fighter gets close with his enemy, exchanging blow after blow. The Wizard uses spells to block foes so they can't get to the Archer who's arrows rain down on the enemies. The Rogue waits for the right moment and strikes down a foe trying to kill the fighter. The Cleric inspires his comrades in combat so they can fight even if they would have normally given up, at the same time driving back the enemies with the wrath of his god...

Everybody is special, all the time. But everyone has a different speciality. And none of these specialities means doing it every second battle, and none of its speciality is going to sleep after 1 hour of dungeon exploration...

 

[Psion]

Yep. One of my problems with the apparent direction of 4E.

If a Wizard can fight indefinitely just like a Fighter can, and just as well, then......what's the point of the Wizard? Or if the Wizard has more tricks up his sleeve at the same time (or alternately), then, what's the point of the Fighter?

Wow, Ark... for someone who delivered such an exhaustive "you just don't understand Bo9S" sermon to me over on RPGnet, this is the last thing I expected to hear from you.

But I think you're spot on here.

But there are two different arguments here:

I do agree with the notion that "low level versus high level" balancing is not effective and not fun.

I however do agree with what you seem to be saying here... compensating for impressive tricks with lower frequency of use IS a valuable method of differentiating character roles, and should not be discarded.

That said, I don't know that they are discarding it; Bruce Cordell said that the 4e Wizard will resemble the 3e Wizard more than the 3e Warlock. I don't mind them shoring up the long term capabilities of the wizard a bit, so it's not a total snooze to play when it's not time for the big guns.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

The question I would like to ask all the "fun" advocates is this...at what point does this argument become absurd. At higher levels a wizard can shape reality(Wish), make monsters appear from thin air(summon monster), levitate, fly, etc. Wouldn't it be fun if a high level fighter could do this? In fact shouldn't all the characters have this type of diversity, at least to a point? Wouldn't that be more fun?

Er, I think you missed the point of the "fun" argument (at least the one I'm making). I don't think that high level fighters should be able to cast spells, or that high level casters should be capable of being as good as the fighter in melee (although this currently possible in 3e).

My argument is simply this: Resource management of x/day abilities is a shot in the dark. Sometimes you misjudge things and run out of your useful abilities early in the day, or heck, maybe you suck at resource management and you always cast your highest level spell first. All I'm saying is that when you run out of those resources, why is your main combat action a non-magical device that you suck at using? How is sitting in a combat, missing things with a crossbow, fun? Especially when you watch the cleric or druid, similarly out of spells, whomping on things in melee?

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

If they play almost identically, other than a little bit of combat positioning and a minor difference in what non-combat things they can do kinda well.....why bother with the distinction at all? Where's the magic in that?

I think it's possible to have them both be able to make contributions to each situation and have those contributions be unique and at different power levels. The wizard will be better at defeating a magical threat, but the fighter won't be worthless, and vice versa for a melee threat.

I could use the same argument for saying, why have two fighters in a 3e party? They're both the same class, after all, and they both have access to the same abilities, so they'll be boring to have in the same party. However, again IME, I haven't found this to be the case. Fighters focusing down different feat paths can have vastly different styles and abilities. If there can be that much diversity between two PCs in the same class, I feel confident that there can be a distinction between two completely different classes. At least enough such that, in the majority of situations, everyone has something they can contribute that actually has a decent chance of having some (albeit small) impact.

 

[Azgulor]

Ummm, what? You've never seen these criticisms of 3e before now? Really? I could easily find thread after thread complaining about EXACTLY this point stretching back for years. It's not like this is suddenly a new issue. Sure, maybe your group didn't have these issues (to be fair, mine didn't particularly either) but, that doesn't mean that these issues don't exist.

No, but since they didn't exist to a large degree in my groups or your group, one can hardly claim it's a design flaw in the game. If the DM doesn't know to keep the pressure on the PCs so they can't hide and rest after every battle, is that the game's fault or the DM's? If the PCs blow through their resources in every encounter is that a design flaw or a tactics error? What about the luck of the die?

And guess what? If resource management is a feature, not a flaw, of the game there will always be a point where resources are depleted. We won't know until we see the finished game but if PC's best expendable resources fall into the per-day category there's nothing to stop the players from adopting the same expore-fight-rest cycle in 4e. It will still come down to the DM and the tactics the players employ.

It is not negative selling to point to possible weak areas in a product and then point to how they've improved these areas. David Noonan makes a specific point of this in the podcast, saying that nothing they are doing now invalidates your game in any way shape or form.

Actually, it is negative selling. I'm a sales engineer for a technology company so I know and use selling strategies. I have to sell in competitive situations almost every day. Negative selling is not my preferred tactic but it's a valid one - especially in a highly competitve situation. The sad part is, they're competing against 3e rather than a competing company.

Most of the new "bells and whistles" are being justified by pointing out a "flaw" of 3e. You can sell a "pro" or difference without pointing out a "con". Preferrably, you want your audience to understand the benefit the new feature will bring without having to hit them over the head with it. That way they've come to agree with you on their own terms rather than having been told how to think.

Almost every blog, report, or announcement I've seen to date (and I'm sure I've missed some) contain a criticism of 3e. Based on my personal experience and what I'm seeing here at ENWorld, these reported flaws are hardly viewed as such by a substantial majority. It's largely a subjective matter of taste.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No, but since they didn't exist to a large degree in my groups or your group, one can hardly claim it's a design flaw in the game.

Yes, because that's a representative sample of everyone else's experiences.

Based on my personal experience and what I'm seeing here at ENWorld, these reported flaws are hardly viewed as such by a substantial majority.

I'd say a sizable and loud plurality.

You are reading a very different ENWorld (and RPG.net and WotC ...) if you haven't seen all of these complaints they're marketing against mentioned over and over and over before the 4E announcement.

 

[Shining Dragon]

Almost every blog, report, or announcement I've seen to date (and I'm sure I've missed some) contain a criticism of 3e. Based on my personal experience and what I'm seeing here at ENWorld, these reported flaws are hardly viewed as such by a substantial majority. It's largely a subjective matter of taste.

Doesn't mean the "flaws" don't exist.

I, for one, have always viewed the issue discussed here as a flaw - specifically the issue of spellcasters (notably wizards and sorcerers) running out of spells... whereas a fighter can swing his/her large sword all day without having their arm fall off.

But allowing spellcasters to outright cast spells without limit isn't the answer (and those who point this as being the proffered solution to back their assertion that its not really a flaw or that the cure is worse than the disease are doing themselves a disservice). There are many possible options available to the developers. From the per encounter abilities mentioned, or (say) a small selection of spells that can be cast without falling within the spells per day limit, or even changing the dynamics of spellcasting to make more powerful spells require longer casting times (if unlimited spells per day was a possible solution).