When "fun" just isn't enough.

[Hussar]

Ok, well that explains where the disconnect comes in.

To me, wandering monsters = 1 in X chance that random monster from table Z will pop up.

You guys are saying that wandering monsters might be that, or might be preplanned encounters that the DM has scripted before hand.

To me, that's not a random encounter. A random encounter is, well, random.

As for an ambush at the watering hole being unheroic . . . I game mastered a lot of RECON, which is the game of Long Range Recon Patrols in the Vietnam War. 4-6 guys behind enemy lines hiding and calling in air strikes or running ambushes was pretty fun and heroic for us. I never understood the "tactics aren't heroic" / "paladins can't use tactics" arguments.

And conflict between being under time pressure and wanting to use safer/more effective tactics? Cool, it's dramatic tension and the players have to make some decisions and do some role playing about how their characters handle it

It's not about tactics. It's about you trying to have it both ways. If I've got a time pressure adventure, then sitting around the well for three days isn't going to be a whole lot of fun.

Then again, just sitting around waiting for everyone to come in, so you can whack them one at a time seems a bit boring to me as well. If it works for you, great, but, I'll pass thanks.

RC brings up fleeing. Well, again, that's extremely difficult. Nearly every monster is FASTER than the party. Since these are random encounters, the party isn't prepared for them, so, it's not like they can choose to avoid them. It's all very well and good to advise players to avoid encounters, but, in actual play, it's much, much more difficult to achieve.

Then again, I find most of Gygax's advise to be of a similar flavour. Sounds fantastic on paper, but, when the dice hit the table, it goes straight out the window.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Wandering =/= Random

 

[haakon1]

It's not about tactics..

Hiding and waiting for the deer/ducks/sniper target to come where you think it will go is a tactic. A really, really ancient tactic, and easier than tracking and stalking.

It's about you trying to have it both ways. If I've got a time pressure adventure, then sitting around the well for three days isn't going to be a whole lot of fun.

The PC's need to make a trade-off decision: quick and dirty frontal assault, or wait and ambush? And if you wait, maybe they'll find you first, or it will be too late.

It doesn't need to be boring, if you gloss over the time spent: "OK, so you wait 3 hours, and . . . x happens."

Also, in a game line RECON, even the "boring" parts of war, like a patrol where you don't find the enemy, can be fun, as you can build tension pretty easily with exploration of potentially trapped or ambush prone areas. Knowing you can die at any second is one thing I like about Boot Hill and RECON games.

Then again, just sitting around waiting for everyone to come in, so you can whack them one at a time seems a bit boring to me as well. If it works for you, great, but, I'll pass thanks.

Who says it's one at a time or boring? Why assume I don't know how to run an interesting game?

RC brings up fleeing. Well, again, that's extremely difficult. Nearly every monster is FASTER than the party. Since these are random encounters, the party isn't prepared for them, so, it's not like they can choose to avoid them. It's all very well and good to advise players to avoid encounters, but, in actual play, it's much, much more difficult to achieve.

Using scouts or hiding while resting you might spot them before they spot you.

And if the party chooses to disengage, the enemy may not choose to follow, depending on why wandering monster is there in the first place, their general motivation and morale, their estimate of the party's strength and the potential for being led into a trap, etc. I roleplay EVERYTHING in my campaign. Even giant space hamsters would need a reason for being where they are and a general attitude, which would drive their reaction to the PCs.

Then again, I find most of Gygax's advise to be of a similar flavour. Sounds fantastic on paper, but, when the dice hit the table, it goes straight out the window.

Heresy!

 

[Simon Atavax]

I don't always want to have "fun" when I play or run a game. Rather, I want to be entertained, engaged and affected. Sometimes that translates to "fun", but not always. Not every truly enjoyable movie or book is "fun" -- there is very little that is "fun" about Cormack McCarthy's 'The Road', for example, but I couldn't put it down until I had finished it.

The term I would use is 'engagement'. And I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't just find 'fun' in a good RPG session; I am engaged, intellectually and emotionally.

I like your example of The Road (an astonishing novel). I would also use Lovecraft as an illustration. I have recently begun a personal project to read all of Lovecraft's stories and write comments/reflections in my blog. Is it "fun"? I wouldn't use that word. Playing Daxter on my PSP is fun. My Lovecraft project is intriguing, engaging, and rewarding.

Just like I want D&D to be.

 

[Reynard]

It occurs to me that per day resources are a somewhat unsuccessful way of handling resource management, leading to the 15 min day problem.

The succes, or not, of per-day abilities as it relates to resource management is entirely a playstyle issue. If the players who rely most on per-day resources -- those with spellcaster PCs -- blow their wad in every fight because they don't want to be "bored" then it falls apart. What isn't often considered, though, is that if the spellcasters are conservative, then they get to shine once the BBEG comes out -- not just because they still have all their flash bangy stuff ready to go, but because the non-resource management characters, the fighters and the rogues, and going to be running low on hit points/expendable magic because they have been doing all the "grunt work".

Really, it depends on what your reason for sitting at the table is. If you are there to kill crap and feel awesome all the time, and you play a caster, you're playing the wrong game. You are better off playinga fightery type who can always be awesome. If you are there to engage the adventure and use strategy and tactics to achieve the best results/most success with the greatest efficiency, a caster is a good choice.

What 4E appears to be doing is deciding that no one wants to engage the game in a way other than killing stuff and being awesome all the time, and therefore it is built to ensure that killing stuff and being awesome all the time are inherent properties of the game, regardless of the character you decide to play. The problem is, it just isn't true. There are as many playstyles and preferences and expectations as there are players and cutting out "operational" players is as inconsistent with the spirit of D&D as eliminating high melodrama or hack-and-slashing would be.

 

[Hussar]

The succes, or not, of per-day abilities as it relates to resource management is entirely a playstyle issue. If the players who rely most on per-day resources -- those with spellcaster PCs -- blow their wad in every fight because they don't want to be "bored" then it falls apart. What isn't often considered, though, is that if the spellcasters are conservative, then they get to shine once the BBEG comes out -- not just because they still have all their flash bangy stuff ready to go, but because the non-resource management characters, the fighters and the rogues, and going to be running low on hit points/expendable magic because they have been doing all the "grunt work".

The problem is, it's not the wizard who's run out of spells, it's the cleric. Because Fighters and Rogues are most certainly not "non-resource management characters". They have limited hit points and no way to regain them other than healers. So, if the wizard sits back and saves his spells, then the fighter and rogue take more hits because the fight lasts longer and the cleric runs out of healing that much faster.

And we're right back to the 15 minute adventuring day.

And, you get multiple situations where the caster reserves his spells and then never uses them. He might need them later. But, he doesn't know. So, he never casts them at all.

What's the point of having an ability that's never used?

Really, it depends on what your reason for sitting at the table is. If you are there to kill crap and feel awesome all the time, and you play a caster, you're playing the wrong game. You are better off playinga fightery type who can always be awesome. If you are there to engage the adventure and use strategy and tactics to achieve the best results/most success with the greatest efficiency, a caster is a good choice.

The problem is, the fightery type can't always be awesome. He runs out of hit points. And, at high levels, the fightery type just can't keep up without the wizard and cleric buffing the crap out of him because the bad guys can kill him in one round of full attacks.

To have greatest efficiency requires knowledge of the future. You have to know the best time to cast your spells in order to achieve greater efficiency. However, you can never actually do that. So, you actually reduce efficiency because you're constantly guessing as to whether or not you need to use this resource now or later. Either you use it too early or you use it too late. It's only through luck that you would actualy use it at the right moment.

What 4E appears to be doing is deciding that no one wants to engage the game in a way other than killing stuff and being awesome all the time, and therefore it is built to ensure that killing stuff and being awesome all the time are inherent properties of the game, regardless of the character you decide to play. The problem is, it just isn't true. There are as many playstyles and preferences and expectations as there are players and cutting out "operational" players is as inconsistent with the spirit of D&D as eliminating high melodrama or hack-and-slashing would be.

This is untrue.

For one, per day resources are still in the game. So, you cannot state that we can be awesome all the time.

The "operational" character has never, ever worked in the game. 30 years of gaming has proven that.

Look at it this way. Look at your last campaign. How many times did your PC's adventure until they used EVERY per day resource? Once? Twice? How many times did they rest as soon as the cleric ran out of healing? Did the cleric only run out of healing after the wizard ran out of spells? How often did all your per day casters run out of all of their spells at exactly the same time?

I'm guessing the number of times any of those are true is absolutely dwarfed by the number of times it isn't true.

Thus, per day resources never really did what you claimed. It doesn't help tactical play because tactical play requires more information than the players and certainly the PC's should have access to. At no point do the players know how many encounters they have to face before they are finished with the adventure. Without that knowledge, there is simply no way to make per day resources efficient. You either run out of gas before the finish line or you end the race with a full tank.

Per encounter resources gives you an extra level of granularity. You can plan your expenditure of resources based on the given situation, which you have knowledge of, not any guessed at possible future. Do you use this or that ability? If I use X, and the situation changes, I might have a problem, so, maybe it's better to use Y. If I'm really in a jam, I'll blow my per day resource - like a sudden maximize for example - and save the day.

If you really want to learn how per encounter resources work at the table, try to play with Bo9S and the reserve feats. Then you'll see that this is not the doom and gloom of the game that you're predicting.

 

[haakon1]

And, you get multiple situations where the caster reserves his spells and then never uses them. He might need them later. But, he doesn't know. So, he never casts them at all.

What's the point of having an ability that's never used?

Resource management is fun. I like turn-based-strategy games, and D&D (up to now) has had that aspect.

It's also had other aspects that make it fun:
- Risk. You never know what you're going to face, and you have to plan for it and make tradeoffs. Your character can die a horrible death if you aren't both lucky and skillful.
- Tradeoffs. Different classes have different ads and disads. Different actions do too -- rest and regain spells, but risk the wandering monster? Or waste a spell slot on Rope Trick? -- tough call, which means there's fun in making it.

And, at high levels, the fightery type just can't keep up without the wizard and cleric buffing the crap out of him because the bad guys can kill him in one round of full attacks.

Nod, short term buff spells are a tedious aspect of 3e.

you're constantly guessing as to whether or not you need to use this resource now or later. Either you use it too early or you use it too late. It's only through luck that you would actualy use it at the right moment.

Decision making, tradeoffs, luck, skill (good at estimating the enemy you'll face) -- this is interesting stuff, not bad stuff. It's the stuff a lot of games and sports are made of.

How many times did your PC's adventure until they used EVERY per day resource? Once? Twice?

Almost never, but why is this bad? How many times do you arrive at the bank with zero cents in your pocket, or at the gas station on fumes? How often does a soldier come back from a patrol with no ammo or grenades left, a radio with a completely drained battery, and not a drop in his canteen? Why should EVERYTHING need to get used up in D&D either?

How many times did they rest as soon as the cleric ran out of healing?

Hmmm, depends on the campaign. As a player in the World's Largest Dungeon, a lot. The two I've been running, rarely. The one with a lot of outdoor adventures, they camp when they find a good site and it's the end of the day. The dungeon-oriented one, when people are really beat up and need to heal.

Per encounter resources gives you an extra level of granularity. You can plan your expenditure of resources based on the given situation, which you have knowledge of, not any guessed at possible future.

Per encounter resources are too gamey. Why does entering an officially new encounter power you up? I don't see a non-game-mechanic reason for it, so I don't like it. I do like Resource Management play.

 

[Hussar]

Almost never, but why is this bad? How many times do you arrive at the bank with zero cents in your pocket, or at the gas station on fumes? How often does a soldier come back from a patrol with no ammo or grenades left, a radio with a completely drained battery, and not a drop in his canteen? Why should EVERYTHING need to get used up in D&D either?

You're missing my point. Reynard made the claim that daily resource management was more efficient. That's what I was refuting.

Per encounter resources are too gamey. Why does entering an officially new encounter power you up? I don't see a non-game-mechanic reason for it, so I don't like it. I do like Resource Management play

Eh? Now this is an argument I don't understand. What is the difference between recharging per day or per encounter from a gamist standpoint? They are both entirely arbitrary divisions. There's no particular reason why you should recharge every 24 hours rather than every 5 minutes.

Now, if you were to recharge the same power levels every 5 minutes that you could every 24 hours, then I'd agree with you. But, that's not what's going on. Take Tome of Magic as a perfect example of how you mix per day and per encounter resources.

The Binder chooses his vestige (and at higher levels two or more) at the beginning of the day. Each vestige gives a suite of about 5 abilities - 1 is a per encounter (5 round recharge) and the other 4 are pretty much at will. The abilities are tied to a particular theme - so binding one vestige gives you a "tank" suite while binding another gives you a "blaster" suite. Those aren't entirely accurate terms, but you get the idea.

When you get two vestiges per day, you get 10 abilities, and so on.

Now, you get your per day goodness because you have to choose your suite for the day and that's pretty much fixed (although a feat can allow you to possibly switch your vestige once a day (another per day resource)) but the abilities you gain from that vestige are usable all day long.

I really get the sense that people haven't looked at how per encounter resources have been set out in 3e - reserve feats for casters, Tome of Magic, Bo9S etc.

It's not all that hard to keep the tactical aspect of per day while gaining per encounter resources.

 

[Reynard]

It's not all that hard to keep the tactical aspect of per day while gaining per encounter resources.

it isn't the tactical aspects of per day abilities that are at issue-- it is the strategic aspects. Most importantly, it is making the choice of how to use those resources, not just at the moment of the encounter, but when you are "gearing up". If the magic user gets 4 3rd level spells, for example, the player has to decide -- based on whatever information is available to the character -- how many of those are going to be fireballs and how many are going to be fly. That's the challenge inherent in per-day resources, not simply that they refresh after 24 hours.

 

[Hussar]

it isn't the tactical aspects of per day abilities that are at issue-- it is the strategic aspects. Most importantly, it is making the choice of how to use those resources, not just at the moment of the encounter, but when you are "gearing up". If the magic user gets 4 3rd level spells, for example, the player has to decide -- based on whatever information is available to the character -- how many of those are going to be fireballs and how many are going to be fly. That's the challenge inherent in per-day resources, not simply that they refresh after 24 hours.

The problem with that, IME, is that players will choose from a very limited set of general purpose spells and never, ever use anything else.

I've seen numerous times, the party finds somewhere they need to Breath Water, so they rest for the day, and the cleric switches up his spell, because no one in their right mind is going to waste a slot on Water Breathing unless they actually knew they would need it.

Think of the rather large number of spells at any given level for either cleric or wizard. How many of those spells have you never seen in play? I don't know about you, but, Deathwatch has never seen the light of day. Hide from Undead/Detect Undead? Not unless you know that there is undead around already. When's the last time you saw a player choose Hold Portal for a memorized spell? Magic Aura? The list goes on and on.

I remember back in my 2e days allowing clerics to cast any spell on their list whenever they wanted to, up to their limit per day. Not my original idea, I cadged it from Dragon. I discovered that 90% of the time, the clerics were casting exactly the same things, but, that other 10% was very interesting. I saw spells cast that I had never seen before - I actually saw a reversed Sticks to Snakes cast! Snakes to Sticks. One time and only one time.

The problem with per day is that your knowledge of what is going to happen that day is very, very limited. So, because of that limitation, you are forced to take the most bland, widest application spells you can. Is it Fly or Fireball? Because it most certainly won't be Sepia Snake Sigil.