Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

Color me very unconvinced.

I understand that you can repeat your statements ad infinitum ad nauseum, as can I, but this brings us no closer to a resolution. Luckily, our positions can be verified within the course of 2 years, and I am perfectly happy to wait that long.

I, for one, do not conflate deliberate design goals with well thought-out or good design goals.

If there is anything new added to the discussion, which I have not already responded to, I'll respond.

If not, this is me signing off.

(Thread necromancy scheduled for 1 year after the third book releases.)


RC

 

[Jackelope King]

<snip>

Here is a substantial point of disagreement. Not about your particular example - I also have read the dragon fight summary. But in fact the rationing of actions per round will be crucial to 4e design. That is part of the rationale of going from per-day to per-encounter - by increasing the number of options available to each character in a given round, the intention is to make the choice of which action to take in any given round a more interesting one. At present, fighters have an unlimited supply of actions (assuming they do not run out of hit points) but virtually no choice of actions - they move and attack until the foe stands still, and then they full attack every round. Casters, on the other hand, have much choice of action but an extremely finite supply of actions (ie once they use all their spells they have no meaningful choices left).

(You may say that casters always have the choice to do nothing, that is, to conserve a spell for a later time. While true, I think the 4e designers deliberately exclude this from the list of viable choices, for the simple reason that most people do not find it a virtue in a game to have to skip a turn. I suspect you disagree with the 4e designers here - I will return to that below.)

Once we accept that the goal is to give each character meaningful choices of actions in a round - thus giving players meaningful choices in each round - it seems obvious to me that it matters hugely, from the point of view of mechanical interest, in which round a given ability is used.

Suppose, for example, that in round N I choose to defer use of my "second wind", because I believe that (i) I have enough hits to survive into round N+1, and therefore that (ii) I should instead this round use my per-encounter ability to add my level to damage as a swift action - thereby perhaps killing the foe and allowing me to conserve my "second wind" because the party healer can heal me without consuming resources. In such a situation something of mechanical interest has happened although it never became prudent to use my per-day resource. The interest is a result not of resource consumption, but of the need to make a decision about resource consumption.

This also shows that mixing per-day resources with other, non-reducing resources adds a new dimension of interest to the game that is missing at present, namely, the capacity to have interesting decisions about resource use that do not deplete resources.

It is true that, after the encounter, the players will look back and say "That didn't consume our per-day resources." They may even look back and say "On reflection that was never going to consume our per-day resources." But as long as they do not know that those things are true during the encounter itself, the encounter will be of mechanical interest (and so quite unlike the much-derided 10th level fighter vs 4 kobolds).

To link this back to the key premise in your argument: it is true that, once the fight is over, if per-day resouces were used it does not matter in which round they were used. Likewise, once the fight is over, if they were not used it does not matter in which rounds their use was or was not contemplated by the players. But the interest of an encounter is not something which is determined by reflection on it after it is over. It is something which unfolds within the very encounter itself - and during the encounter (i) the players do not know whether or not their per-day resources will end up being consumed or not and (ii) are able to determine whether or not they will be through their own mechanically interesting choices.

Just as you are puzzled by my failure to believe you, so I am puzzled by your seeming inability to appreciate the dynamic epistemic situation that a player is in during an encounter, and which is (to me) a very obvious and rich source of mechanical interest, even if there is (at the end of it all) no mechanical significance in the sense of resource attrition or accretion.

<snip>

Very well-put. I think that captured very well what I meant when trying to describe the tactical options available to players on a round-by-round basis.

 

[pemerton]

I, for one, do not conflate deliberate design goals with well thought-out or good design goals.

In this respect you are not unique.

I understand that you can repeat your statements ad infinitum ad nauseum, as can I, but
<snip>

this is me signing off.

Fair enough. For whatever reason, you do not accept that mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, if in the end it does not result in such attrition.

I have GMed games in which interest has been generated by this sort of uncertainty (and the resulting capacity of the players to influence the outcome by their resource-deployment choices). So I don't share your scepticism.

Very well-put. I think that captured very well what I meant when trying to describe the tactical options available to players on a round-by-round basis.

Thanks. I found your posts very helpful for crystallising how it is that a system that mixes per-day and per-encounter resources will generate a type of mechanical interest that the current pure per-day system cannot.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Fair enough. For whatever reason, you do not accept that mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, if in the end it does not result in such attrition.

You know what? Simply because I am unwilling to continue repeating myself forever doesn't mean that it's okay to misrepresent my position.

That's not only rude; it's juvenile.

RC

 

[IanArgent]

Assuming that resource management quanta must be the same as encounter design quanta (and if it's not, why should it not be) - should resource management be primarily encounter-quantized or adventure-quantized? (day-quantized isn't an option, adventures cannot easily be day-quantized).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You know what? Simply because I am unwilling to continue repeating myself forever doesn't mean that it's okay to misrepresent my position.

That's not only rude; it's juvenile.

It's also accurate from where I'm sitting and from what I've read.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's also accurate from where I'm sitting and from what I've read.

Then either you need to learn to read better, or I need to learn to write better.

Examine the following:

"For whatever reason, you do not accept that mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, if in the end it does not result in such attrition."​

An encounter unfolds, "in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition". This is a win/lose situation. The players know they might win; they know they might lose. They do not know which it is going to be.

Compare this to something I said earlier:

"Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during the battle, then the battle is consequential."​

Indeed, if you examine my analysis (and I have no desire to go back to find it; someone with Search can do that if they so desire), you will see that I suggest that there will be an increase of win/lose encounters so as to generate mechanical interest (reach the mechanical threshold of significance), which could previously be attained without requiring a win/lose scenario.

I do not accept that mechanical interest can result in the long term from encounters in which the players know that resource-attrition will not occur, and which they cannot lose. In the model thus far described for 4e, this means an increase in win/lose encounters will probably occur. IOW, DMs will try to make battles mechanically interesting by presenting scenarios in which, in any round "the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition".

I do not accept that, having played the game for a reasonable amount of time, that players will not know which encounters are likely to be win/lose, and which encounters are merely "fluff".

If you are currently experiencing the 15-minute adventuring day, it is because your players are using major assets on every encounter that seems remotely threatening, and then resting to recover those assets.

I do not accept that, unless some mechanism exists to prevent resting to reset per-day assets, that the same players are going to be faced with a win/lose encounter "in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition" without using their major assets, and then resting to recover those assets.

IOW, it is the ability of the DM to limit "resetting" major resources that determines whether or not prudent play includes moderation or not. Because the players control a large part of resource attrition, the DM cannot set up a situation in which the players do not know from round to round whether or not there will be resource attrition -- the players can always decide that there will be resource attrition in any game system that includes resource attrition.

So, certainly, mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, even if in the end it does not result in such attrition, so long as they are given a reason to attempt to conserve resources.

Unless the players are given a reason to do so, it is never prudent when facing a win/lose encounter to not use per-day resources.

You are in a dungeon. You get into a fight that has, say, a 10% chance of leaving a party member dead each round. You can use:

* At will power, 5% chance of ending the fight this round.
* Per encounter power, 25% chance of ending the fight this round, and brings up the chance of at will power to end fight.
* Per day power, 75% chance of ending the fight this round, and brings up the chance of at will and per encounter powers to end fight.

(Obviously, I am just making these numbers up, and obviously this is somewhat exagerated in order to make a point. But it represents the problem exactly in kind, if not in specifics.)

If you know that you can rest and reset your per-day power without danger or cost, and you choose not to use it, you're certainly not making your best tactical choice. If, however, you know that you cannot simply reset the per-day power, and that you might face more difficult encounters today, with whatever resources you have left, then you are faced with an actual decision.

The 15-minute adventuring day problem was created by a combination of a sharply narrowed range of mechanically significant encounters, coupled with the idea that it was "unfun" to prevent PCs from resting to recharge. The narrowed range of encounters makes it more desireable to use your big guns (because, if a monster can affect you, it can probably kill your); the ease of resting removes any counter argument to using your big guns (because once used they can simply be reset).

The new design as described narrows the range even farther, as DMs institute more win/lose scenarios because there is no longer any such thing as an encounter that uses 1/4 resources.....or for that matter, an encounter that both unfolds, "in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition" which is not a win/lose scenario. And, faced with a win/lose scenario, smart players use their best resources every time, unless there is a very good reason not to.

But, of course, from where your sitting, what pemerton wrote is a completely accurate description of a position that, apparently, neither you nor he bothered to read before responding to.

Again, simply because I am unwilling to continue repeating myself forever doesn't mean that it's okay to misrepresent my position.

That's not only rude; it's juvenile.

You'll pardon me if I am unimpressed.

RC

 

[Jackelope King]

<snip>

I have both read and understand what you're saying, RC. However, you have not seemed to understand what I've been trying to communicate.

Your claim is that the mechanical threshold of significance for determining whether or not an encounter is relevant (in a mechanical sense) is whether or not the party has expended resources which, if expended, will not be available in a later encounter. Thus the players are forced to manage their limited resources carefully or be unable to affect later encounters. If there is no attrition, then an encounter is simply irrelevant because it in no mechanical way impacts a later encounter. This is what you seem to have been arguing.

I, in turn, have claimed that your definition of "mechanical thresholds of significance" is insufficient. Just as you have in the above post, you completely disregard the depletion of resources within the only garunteed encounter within a given rest period: the encounter the PCs are currently egaged in. I've pointed out that if you don't manage your pool of resources wisely within the time-frame of a single encounter, it can indeed have very significant mechanical impact on the outcome of that encounter. And I will point out again that the encounter I'm describing is the only 100% garunteed encounter in the day. The hypothetical encounters which may or may not happen are certainly relevant, but so too is the garunteed encounter the PCs are already taking part in. This is a valid mechanical threshold of significance, and one which is more applicable to a wider spectrum of gamersout there.

Rather than rehash my entire point (which you have yet to respond to), I'll post it again:

This leads me to conclude once again that your definition of "mechanical significance" is flawed. To claim that what happens within the context of an encounter is "irrelevant" in light of this definition can only lead one to conclude that your definition is not sufficient for the discussion.

I would suggest that in its place, mechanical threshold of significance must take into account the fact that it is an encounter in which resources are expended, and whether or not the expenditure of resources within the context of any given encounter has significant mechanical impact upon the outcome of that particular encounter and the PCs' abilities to further continue in it. It's less relevant how an encounter impacts upon subsequent encounters in a given day because those encounters are entirely variable based on playstyle and context.

Indeed, a designer can't predict how many encounters a party will face in light of a wide audience such as D&D enjoys. A designer can't assume that a party will face just one or as many as ten encounters. The optimal solution is to assume that within the fundamental unit of the challenge, the encounter itself, the PCs are on equal footing, and that the crux of managing resources makes that encounter fun. It's not a delayed fun that may or may not happen, such as saving your fireball for an encounter that might not even be coming. It's not an unbalancing reward like going nova and then throwing up a rope trick after every encounter so your spellcaster dominates. It maximizes that particular encounter, the only encounter a designer can know a party will have within any given unit of time. It's an invalid assumption to assume that all playstyles will face a similar ratio of resouce-consuming encounters in a given day, and the per-encounter system acknowledges this and instead focuses on the one encounter that a party is garunteed to have: the one they're in right now.

pemerton similarly argued:

Here is a substantial point of disagreement. Not about your particular example - I also have read the dragon fight summary. But in fact the rationing of actions per round will be crucial to 4e design. That is part of the rationale of going from per-day to per-encounter - by increasing the number of options available to each character in a given round, the intention is to make the choice of which action to take in any given round a more interesting one. At present, fighters have an unlimited supply of actions (assuming they do not run out of hit points) but virtually no choice of actions - they move and attack until the foe stands still, and then they full attack every round. Casters, on the other hand, have much choice of action but an extremely finite supply of actions (ie once they use all their spells they have no meaningful choices left).

(You may say that casters always have the choice to do nothing, that is, to conserve a spell for a later time. While true, I think the 4e designers deliberately exclude this from the list of viable choices, for the simple reason that most people do not find it a virtue in a game to have to skip a turn. I suspect you disagree with the 4e designers here - I will return to that below.)

Once we accept that the goal is to give each character meaningful choices of actions in a round - thus giving players meaningful choices in each round - it seems obvious to me that it matters hugely, from the point of view of mechanical interest, in which round a given ability is used.

Suppose, for example, that in round N I choose to defer use of my "second wind", because I believe that (i) I have enough hits to survive into round N+1, and therefore that (ii) I should instead this round use my per-encounter ability to add my level to damage as a swift action - thereby perhaps killing the foe and allowing me to conserve my "second wind" because the party healer can heal me without consuming resources. In such a situation something of mechanical interest has happened although it never became prudent to use my per-day resource. The interest is a result not of resource consumption, but of the need to make a decision about resource consumption.

This also shows that mixing per-day resources with other, non-reducing resources adds a new dimension of interest to the game that is missing at present, namely, the capacity to have interesting decisions about resource use that do not deplete resources.

It is true that, after the encounter, the players will look back and say "That didn't consume our per-day resources." They may even look back and say "On reflection that was never going to consume our per-day resources." But as long as they do not know that those things are true during the encounter itself, the encounter will be of mechanical interest (and so quite unlike the much-derided 10th level fighter vs 4 kobolds).

To link this back to the key premise in your argument: it is true that, once the fight is over, if per-day resouces were used it does not matter in which round they were used. Likewise, once the fight is over, if they were not used it does not matter in which rounds their use was or was not contemplated by the players. But the interest of an encounter is not something which is determined by reflection on it after it is over. It is something which unfolds within the very encounter itself - and during the encounter (i) the players do not know whether or not their per-day resources will end up being consumed or not and (ii) are able to determine whether or not they will be through their own mechanically interesting choices.

You have yet to respond to the validity of these arguments with anything other than handwaving them away as "unconvincing" or a adopting "we'll have to wait and see" position. Specifically, you have failed to explain how the depletion of resources within the encounter, and the decision of if/when to use those limited resources (Whether per-encounter, per-day, per-year, or per-episode-of-Law-and-Order) is in and of itself mechanically insignificant. If I have come across has hostile, you have my appologies, as this was not my intent. I simply cannot understand how one would reject the points above calling the round-by-round choices for using limited resources a mechanical threshold of significance, and would greatly appreciate a response from you on this subject.

 

[gizmo33]

I've pointed out that if you don't manage your pool of resources wisely within the time-frame of a single encounter, it can indeed have very significant mechanical impact on the outcome of that encounter.

"very significant mechanical impact" = somebody getting killed? Otherwise, what would the significance be?

I don't think that these somewhat general statements accurately reflect what's going on. A blog entry by James Wyatt that was referenced on this thread (a later one with a given link) seems to contradict what you're saying, for example. He was talking about his WoW experience and that basically without long term resource attrition to consider, he was basically just going down the list of most powerful to least powerful abilities and firing them off.

The implication that I always see is that somehow encounter-level resource usage is like some sort of chess game and that people are careful about how they use them. But look, for example, at what people say about the "1-encounter per day" situation in 3E. The problem that people identify is that wizards are basically overpowered in that kind of environment. And why? Because they're "nova-ing". And why do they nova? Because they aren't really managing their resources as carefully as statements like you're sometimes imply. They don't need to, I don't blame them. It makes more tactical sense to do whatever you need to in order to kill whatever is in front of you when there is nothing else to consider. The risks IME of a hidden enemy are less than the risks of allowing an enemy you see and has closed with you to continue to act round after round.

 

[apoptosis]

Truth be told I think a better example of per-encounter resource use management would be warranted.

Once we accept that the goal is to give each character meaningful choices of actions in a round - thus giving players meaningful choices in each round - it seems obvious to me that it matters hugely, from the point of view of mechanical interest, in which round a given ability is used.

Suppose, for example, that in round N I choose to defer use of my "second wind", because I believe that (i) I have enough hits to survive into round N+1, and therefore that (ii) I should instead this round use my per-encounter ability to add my level to damage as a swift action - thereby perhaps killing the foe and allowing me to conserve my "second wind" because the party healer can heal me without consuming resources. In such a situation something of mechanical interest has happened although it never became prudent to use my per-day resource. The interest is a result not of resource consumption, but of the need to make a decision about resource consumption.

From my understanding of this example (i am pretty sure you made the abilities up) there was no real decision to make. If you didn't have enough hits and were out of the encounter you would have to use second wind (otherwise you are out of the encounter). If you are in the encounter and have enough hits the only real choice would be to use the added level damage bonus (there would be no reason to use the second wind) so there isn't really much tactical resource management going on.

In general I tend to agree with RC, but maybe some better tactical examples of per-encounter resource management might help. Then the decision would be whether the examples are so specific (by specific i do not detailed but so circumstantial) that they would rarely occur.