This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[AllisterH]

"In character" means different things to different people and therefore doesn't make a good yardstick for judging whether something is a good design choice or not. It might be "in character" for the party to turtle up and rest after a particularly nasty encounter, but it is equally valid to suggest pressing forward toward the goal -- whatever that may be -- is more "in character". The real issue is not whether it is "in character" but whether it is a necessity based upon the mechanics. If you blow your whole wad in every encounter, it becomes a necessity. if you think about your resources and how best to use them in attempting to achieve some goal, it may or may not be.

i

I'm sorry but no, "pressing on" is NOT roleplaying.

Unless the situation is time-sensitive AND the objective is important enough, in-character, one doesn't attempt endeavours at less than 50% when your LIFE is on the line A situation like "we have to reach the evil altar before midnight or the world is destroyed" makes sense since a 5% of success is _STILL_ better than no chance.

However, a situation like "we have to save the village from the orc slavers" will depend on the personality of the characters (I can see arguments for both sides when the party is at 50% effectiveness for taking this on) since even a paladin can argue that it's better to rest and be at 100% and then attempt a rescue versus trying one where you are more likely to fail (especially if there is no backup and the party is the only ones that know of the slavers).

But a random dungeon crawl? Unless the character has a deathwish, it makes NO sense for characters NOT to camp. Please show a REAL world example of people in life and death situations CHOOSING not to be at 100% effectivness.

 

[Reynard]

I'm sorry but no, "pressing on" is NOT roleplaying.

Generally speaking, these kinds of statements are, at best, considered impolite. "Role playing" covers a wide spectrum of activities from deep immersion psycho-drama to giving your playing piece a name like Bob The Fighter, The Third. And quite frankly, what's "realistic" isn't the same as what's "in character" because the physics of the world the PCs live in -- i.e. the game mechanics, playstyle and houserules at the table -- are entirely different than those of the real world. So, I'd thank you not to wave a geeklitism flag on the subject of "in character", if for no other reason than to avoid a flame war.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

But a random dungeon crawl? Unless the character has a deathwish, it makes NO sense for characters NOT to camp. Please show a REAL world example of people in life and death situations CHOOSING not to be at 100% effectivness.

Could we all agree that roleplaying games, and D&D especially, do NOT simulate real life, and as such REAL world examples are worth absolutely nothing as comparisons? Apart from only a minority of us all actually having any valid comparable situations to bring up when talking about a bunch of specially gifted people (some not even human) going down into an old, trap-laden, monster-ridden underground complex to extract treasures and knowledge, or hunting after another bunch of equally specially gifted villains (with less gifted but monstrous henchmen) who abducted/stole some important person/item in order to rule/destroy the world.

 

[AllisterH]

How am I being rude?

Seriously, unless the character has a deathwish, in a random dungeon crawl barring extenuating circumstances, how does one justify in-character a person not resting and recovering when they are only at 50% of max effectiveness?

 

[Azgulor]

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


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.

<Beats forehead against brick wall.>
Your snide little comments aside, my experience doesn't appear to be unique reading through this thread. Yes there are those who disagree - that doesn't invalidate my experience.

When you start providing scientific polling data, we'll start talking about representative samples and plurality.

And I guess I am reading different forums. Apparently I'm reading both the For- and the Against- sides of the 4e topics. You appear to be dismissing the opinions you don't agree with. That's your perrogative. However, just because you post dismissive comments against every challenger of a new 4e element - that doesn't make it a majority viewpoint. It also doesn't mean those opinions aren't as valid as yours.

 

[Reynard]

How am I being rude?

Seriously, unless the character has a deathwish, in a random dungeon crawl barring extenuating circumstances, how does one justify in-character a person not resting and recovering when they are only at 50% of max effectiveness?

The problem is that you are suggesting that it can never be in-character, and making a pretty elitist statement about "real roleplaying" in the process.

Let's say the PCs are a group of adventurers -- and by that I mean, people who take great risks in hopes of great rewards. These are people that know that once they step into the breach, there's a good chance they might not come out again, but they are willing to do it because they want to find treasure, glory and/or power in those deep, dangerous holes in the ground. Let's say this group of adventurers just accidentally stumbled on the lair of an otyugh and although they defeated it, they took something of a beating. They could stop and rest, even though it is only 10 AM, but if they do that they lose a whole day. They could also press forward, knowing they aren't at the top of their game, taking it slow and careful and deciding what to do in each new (apparent) threat as they come upon it. Maybe, they'll find some treasure nearby, or be able to scout out the complex, or something else. maybe they'll get bushwhacked by a band of hungry cave trolls and get eaten. It is time to make a decision, and either one -- stop and rest or push forward -- is equally valid for these daredevil treasure hunters. For a "normal person"? Well, a "normal person" wouldn't have gone down there in the first place.

 

[Reynard]

And I guess I am reading different forums. Apparently I'm reading both the For- and the Against- sides of the 4e topics. You appear to be dismissing the opinions you don't agree with. That's your perrogative. However, just because you post dismissive comments against every challenger of a new 4e element - that doesn't make it a majority viewpoint. It also doesn't mean those opinions aren't as valid as yours.

Besides, I thought the original reference was to what the design and development guys were saying, not fans and forumites. The term "unfun" has been slung around a lot in reference to 3e and 4e and how they compare, and what changes are being made. the problem is, "fun" is entirely subjective and for every person that thinks being the mage who just cast his only magic missile is unfun, there's another person who thinks playing the mage who has to be very careful with his resources is a blast.

In any case, this thread has shown that the "rest by 10 AM" problem -- for those that consider it a problem -- has been around since 1974, and I doubt that it will go away entirely with 4e (since they have said they'll be holding on to some per-day abilities). My problem with the design philosophy behind per-encounter resources is that the resource management becomes tactical rather than strategic.

 

[MarkB]

*Applause*

In the words of JMS in Babylon 5:
"It's easy to fight when you've got a lot of ships to work with. The real crunch comes when you are down to almost nothing. Then you either play it safe and you probably lose it all or you take a chance."

...And then you roll a 1, and reach for a blank character sheet.

Or they could plan for their "useless"ness and compensate for it in by being useful in other ways other ways like 1) making contacts, aka role playing, 2) working with their backstory, aka role playing, 3) investigate some leads, aka using their knowledge skills and role playing or etc.

None of which will be either useful or even possible while they're in the dungeon, watching the rest of the party taking on an encounter while they stand at the back plugging away with a masterwork crossbow.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Given the choice between the "wizard having his day" and the "the fighter having his day" on one hand, and "everyone having the same days at the same time," I think I'm leaning towards the second option.

Obviously, I'm more of the first camp. Different strokes for different folks.

I'm just saying that if you CAN make it so the wizard -and- the warrior are useful for every battle, instead of just certain kinds of battle, why not do it?

I don't expect to be useful all the time in every circumstance. To me, it feels like shoe-horning. I just have the sense that this is like, "I'm going to fit this square peg in this round hole, no matter what I have to do, even remake the square peg into a round peg." I'm ok with remaking the square peg into a round peg, just don't call it a square peg if its not a square peg anymore.

 

[Imaro]

Should every class have cool stuff to do in every fight at every level, with new coolness available as they progress?

Is this a trick question?

My problem with this philosophy is...

1. Fighting isn't everything.
2. If everyone is at least competent(or better), in a fight, the Fighter himself becomes less viable as an option, since the versatility of other character types becomes an even stronger incentive to play them. I personally believe every character can do "cool"(whatever this word means since I'm getting the impression cool=damage now) things each round as long as their imagination works with any character. YMMV of course.