Why is it so important?

[gizmo33]

My point is that, if bad play never leads to a risk of death in the attrition game - ie if every encounter is one which, however poorly the players have managed their resources, they can succeed at - then the attrition game will also be mechanically meaningless. Assuming that non-mechanical thresholds of significance are put to one side for the moment, for the attrition game to be of interest there must be consequences to the players of consuming resources, and I don't see what else those consequences would be but the chance of losing (ie, in the last analysis, PCs dying in) an encounter.

I've said this a few times, I'm running out of ways of making it clearer. First, under *any* paradigm, a risk of "something bad" (death, for example) must be present for players to worry about their characters. That seems logical to me. And nothing I've said contradicts this, so I don't understand the necessity or relevance of the premise in your "if" statement. The point I was making in the part of the conversation you are referring to was that the deadliness of encounters under the per-encounter paradigm is higher than in 3E. You're not acknowledging, for reasons I cannot figure out, that it doesn't have to be the N+1 encounter. It can be N+X encounter. And thus it seems logical and obvious to me that 3E isn't as deadly. And at the same time, I've tried to make a case (far less logical and more of an YMMV) that the resource issues make up for the tension created by less immediate risk by creating more of a sense of looming uncertainty.

I expect that WoTC have done market research to try and gauge the tastes of RPGers.

There's no evidence for this. Wyatt's blog doesn't make mention of it in his research. I'm not sure why they would withhold it. If they're going to advocate for something, why not provide all of the information they're using to make their decision. As it's been pointed out though, they're not getting rid of per-day resources in 4E, and Wyatt's later blog points out some problems with the per-encounter-only design.

I'm not entirely sure if your first and second examples point in the same direction. You seem to be saying both that operational play allows for mitigation of mistakes, and that per-encounter is more tolerant of mistakes. I don't understand what you mean - these claims seem to me to be in tension.

Somewhat different contexts - I'll try to clarify. Operational play *allows for* the mitigation of mistakes, but it has with it uncertainty. As we've discussed, going outside the dungeon is not without decisions and risks. Losing 10 hitpoints in a per-encounter situation doesn't involve uncertainty, it doesn't involve finding a safe place to camp. You virtually click your fingers and regain your hitpoints unless the relatively improbable situation occurs of another group of monsters attacking - which, almost by definition and common sense, really deserves to be treated as part of the same encounter. The main distinction is that the "mitigation" in the former situation requires tactical play, while in the latter it does not.

Turning to the particular issue of healing, it seems to me that in the per-encounter game a 10 hitpoint mistake might well be fatal if healing can't be brought to bear, whereas (as you note in your first example) in an operational game minor cures can handle it easily.

I don't find this to be an "apples to apples" comparison. It seems fundementally unfair to compare a situation where PCs have no healing in 4E to a situation where PCs have numerous minor cures in 3E.

 

[gizmo33]

instead they have to play out a retreat, a camp, re-equipping, rememorise spells, possibly resolve some wandering monster encounters that may well be (from the point of view of the plot or theme of the game) largely meaningless.

That's like saying that swinging a sword in a battle is meaningless. You're reasoning here is circular, because there's no reason that successfully camping is meaningless in a game where success at it is critical to the mission, which presumably has huge amounts of meaning. The issue of whether or not one or the other is more interesting is a matter of taste/opinion and is seperate. The basic fact that you seem to be missing is that any activity that's required for success in a mission with meaning, is by definition, meaningful.

There are still questions unanswered - what happens, for example, if a PC dies in an encounter?

Based on anecdotal evidence and a little reasoning, I would expect 90% of people advocating for an "all per-encounter" resources game never kill PCs in their games. For the same reasons that they don't like resource issues. I don't understand why they would make a distinction.

In any case, I agree that PC death isn't really different basically between the two systems, though as I've said the probabilities are different. And as the above paragraph alludes to, I'm concerned that all-encounter-resources folks aren't really playing the game the way I do in other ways, like PC death, so they are possibily selling me an idea that's not really taking into account these other issues.

That is correct, assuming that the "victory conditions" are purely military. As I've said in earlier posts, per-encounter design I think is more attractive when non-mechanical thresholds of significance are in play.

This is similar to the PC death issue above - I don't see any distinction between per-encounter and per-day resource games in terms of the kinds of "non-mechanical thresholds" issues that can arise. (BTW - by "per-encounter" I mean "all per-encounter" and by per-day, I certainly allow for some per-encounter abilities)

 

[pemerton]

The point I was making in the part of the conversation you are referring to was that the deadliness of encounters under the per-encounter paradigm is higher than in 3E. You're not acknowledging, for reasons I cannot figure out, that it doesn't have to be the N+1 encounter. It can be N+X encounter. And thus it seems logical and obvious to me that 3E isn't as deadly.

Just to clarify - does "not as deadly" mean "not as deadly per unit of playing time"? That makes sense to me, in that if encounters N, N+1 etc are not that deadly, but N+x is, then there have been a number of non-deadly encounters - but mistakes in those earlier encounters can result in encounter N+x being deadly when otherwise it would not have been (had resources been properly managed). As I think I already noted, in a per-encounter model there is a compression of this sequence - the unfolding of mistakes happens within the encounter. If this is what you mean by per-encounter being deadlier, than I agree.

I think your notion of deadliness - if I have got it right - is different from Raven Crowking's. As far as I can tell, he is asserting that per-encounter will require encounters to involve creatures with bigger numbers relative to the PCs (so as to make the choice to deploy per-day resources relevant - so already he is talking slightly orthogonally to you, because he is not considering pure per-encounter) which make more encounters deadly on the probabilities - whereas I hope I'm right in thinking that we are focussing on deadliness resulting from poor play decisions.

Operational play *allows for* the mitigation of mistakes, but it has with it uncertainty. As we've discussed, going outside the dungeon is not without decisions and risks. Losing 10 hitpoints in a per-encounter situation doesn't involve uncertainty, it doesn't involve finding a safe place to camp. You virtually click your fingers and regain your hitpoints unless the relatively improbable situation occurs of another group of monsters attacking - which, almost by definition and common sense, really deserves to be treated as part of the same encounter. The main distinction is that the "mitigation" in the former situation requires tactical play, while in the latter it does not.

I think one can't make this call until one knows how hard it is to heal within the context of an encounter - afterall, many D&D encounters require healing during them if the party is to succeed - and how the choice to do so interacts with other mechanical options.

Based on anecdotal evidence and a little reasoning, I would expect 90% of people advocating for an "all per-encounter" resources game never kill PCs in their games. For the same reasons that they don't like resource issues. I don't understand why they would make a distinction.

HeroQuest is a system based on per-encounter resoures, which nevertheless allows for character death. But as players can spend Hero Points for "bumps" during contests, the likelihood of a PC dying when a player does not want them to is reduced from a game where the logic of the dice cannot be controverted. I suspect that 4e's Action Points might play a similar role.

As I've noted in earlier posts, it is important for Action Points to work that they not simply become another resource to be managed. Games like HeroQuest attempt to solve this issue by putting acquisition of Hero Points in the hands of the players - they are earned by succeeding at group or individual goals, and this success is in turn in the hands of the player (in part because they can spend points to succeed). But of course this will break down if the main interest of the players is not in the goals per se (and the plot and theme these give rise to) but the meta-goal of succeeding at goals, to earn points, to succeed at goals, etc - so these are not a mechanic for all playstyles.

I've tried to make a case (far less logical and more of an YMMV) that the resource issues make up for the tension created by less immediate risk by creating more of a sense of looming uncertainty.

<cut to later post>

That's like saying that swinging a sword in a battle is meaningless. You're reasoning here is circular, because there's no reason that successfully camping is meaningless in a game where success at it is critical to the mission, which presumably has huge amounts of meaning. The issue of whether or not one or the other is more interesting is a matter of taste/opinion and is seperate. The basic fact that you seem to be missing is that any activity that's required for success in a mission with meaning, is by definition, meaningful.

What I was trying to get at is that, for many players, they do not derive pleasure from playing out all the details of the logistics that the party must engage in. To link this to your sword-swinging example - the game does not require the player of a sword-swinger to theorise the physics and biophysics of swordplay, nor to engage in any swordplay. Likewise, many players do not want to engage with the detail of planning and implementing the logistics of a mission - they want it to happen off-screen (presumably by way of survival skill rolls).

That's why I said "meaningless from the point of view of plot or theme", not "meaningless per se". Compare the plot of the a Tom Clancy novel to the plot of a John Woo movie. Both can involve violent gunplay. Only one involves logistical detail as part of the plot. Players who want the John Woo-style plot may not want to have a ruleset that puts playing out the logistics at the front-and-centre, as did 1st ed AD&D.

There is no doubt that this is an issue of taste/YMMV. I was trying to explain why for some (many?) RPGers pure per-day resources introduce an unattractive element into play - it is meaningless relative to their interest in the game.

I don't see any distinction between per-encounter and per-day resource games in terms of the kinds of "non-mechanical thresholds" issues that can arise. (BTW - by "per-encounter" I mean "all per-encounter" and by per-day, I certainly allow for some per-encounter abilities)

I've explained my reasons for disagreeing with this, so won't reiterate them. They're implicit in my previous paragraph. By introducing operational considerations to the centre of play, pure per-day can get in the way of other thresholds of significance. The main workaround is to have only one encounter per day - but that is itself an obstacle to the implimentation of certain thresholds of signficance, because it necessarily constrains plot and theme in certain respects.

There's no evidence for this. Wyatt's blog doesn't make mention of it in his research. I'm not sure why they would withhold it.

There is a lot of evidence that WoTC do extensive market research. Ryan Dancey talked about it back when 3E came out, and a recent thread on the 4e forum discussed more recent market research endeavours (I don't have the URL to hand). I assume they would withhold this data because it is commercially valuable.

How any such data would be relevant to resource design is, from my point of view, pure speculation. But assuming WoTC has such data, I doubt that they would choose design goals that are not supported by it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To reverse the hyperbole of your first two sentences, let me point out that you can also increase the challenge for PCs by giving all classes d4 HD and allowing spellcasters to only cast six spells per day. But nobody here is suggesting that.

Sounds like Darkness & Dread to me. An excellent resource for running games designed to scare the bejeezus out of the PCs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've said this a few times, I'm running out of ways of making it clearer.

Indeed. But this is because, I think, there are some who do not want to see it clearly. This is why I've given up on answering anyone who clearly doesn't understand and/or doesn't seem to want to understand the argument being presented.

RC

 

[gizmo33]

Just to clarify - does "not as deadly" mean "not as deadly per unit of playing time"?

Yes, I really meant "deadly per unit of playing time". Life is 100% deadly over a long enough time period.

so already he is talking slightly orthogonally to you, because he is not considering pure per-encounter) which make more encounters deadly on the probabilities - whereas I hope I'm right in thinking that we are focussing on deadliness resulting from poor play decisions.

I don't see how what RC and I are saying is different on this particular topic exactly. Per-encounter resource situation (combined with the general nature of my game style, I guess) would result in a higher deadliness per encounter.

I didn't realize were were focusing on "deadliness resulting from poor play decisions". I actually believe that having opinions about when someone else is playing poorly is too presumptuous on my part. I let the dice speak for when people are playing poorly, if there is even such a thing. I don't always know what the facts look like to the players on the other side of the screen and I'm not comfortable with punishing them for doing something wrong. That means, to me, all encounters just reduce down to a probability, and if making a mistake is 20% likely among my group, it's no different to me than if they rolled a dice to resolve it.

I think one can't make this call until one knows how hard it is to heal within the context of an encounter - afterall, many D&D encounters require healing during them if the party is to succeed - and how the choice to do so interacts with other mechanical options.

Healing is a resource like all others IMO. If it is on a per-day basis then the 15 minute adventuring day issues, and all of the "plot-interfering" issues still exist. In fact, given your expressed preferences for how you run the game, I would suspect that limits on healing would defeat the purpose of the other changes.

But of course this [hero points] will break down if the main interest of the players is not in the goals per se (and the plot and theme these give rise to) but the meta-goal of succeeding at goals, to earn points, to succeed at goals, etc - so these are not a mechanic for all playstyles.

I would assume that my players would choose goals that would match the goals that their characters already have in 3E. And in any case I think it's too presumptuous of me to assume I know what's in their minds. I don't like having to have an opinion about alignment for the same reason, and if action/hero points requires me to judge my players' motivations, I would be uncomfortable with that.

What I was trying to get at is that, for many players, they do not derive pleasure from playing out all the details of the logistics that the party must engage in.

Ok, I think we agree on this, I was just pointing out that it was essentially a matter of opinion whereas what you wrote sounded more certain than that.

Players who want the John Woo-style plot may not want to have a ruleset that puts playing out the logistics at the front-and-centre, as did 1st ed AD&D.

I agree that this is a basic difference in game style that creates the difference of opinion here. However, sometimes I feel like people's stated play-styles aren't matching the reality. I have no idea if this applies to you specifically or not - but if people who advocate per-encounter resources are also fudging dice and making judgements about how their players run their characters, then I would want that to be more explicitly stated. IME DMs are not always honest about how they're running the game.

There is no doubt that this is an issue of taste/YMMV. I was trying to explain why for some (many?) RPGers pure per-day resources introduce an unattractive element into play - it is meaningless relative to their interest in the game.

I agree with this. I think I have two reasons for being involved in this. One, because the statements in support of all per-encounter were sounding a little universal, rather than a matter of taste. And secondly because some of the statements which were identifying problems weren't recognizing that there were a set of standard solutions to that problem. So they were going to "fix" something that already had a "fix" to it and apparently they weren't familiar with that. I'm not sure if you fit into either category.

There is a lot of evidence that WoTC do extensive market research. Ryan Dancey talked about it back when 3E came out, and a recent thread on the 4e forum discussed more recent market research endeavours (I don't have the URL to hand). I assume they would withhold this data because it is commercially valuable.

My prior statement anticipates this line of reasoning. I don't see any reason to advocate for something and then not provide the full evidence for it. How "commercially valuable" would the statement be that "people like per-encounter resource games" - that's essentially what Wyatt is saying only he's clearly guessing or basing it on his single opinion. Either he expects people to believe him or he doesn't, and his competitors are among those people.

I'm not saying WoTC doesn't do market research in general. I'm talking about on this specific problem. And really I'm wondering about the role that such research can play in the development of rules in general. You can't really get much informative about a hypothetical rule change for a game that people haven't played yet. People can tell you what they don't like in the current rules, but I'm less certain that people can make coherent and consistent suggestions for how to fix it. Things that seem good in the abstract will often turn out to be less so in practice.

 

[pemerton]

Indeed. But this is because, I think, there are some who do not want to see it clearly. This is why I've given up on answering anyone who clearly doesn't understand and/or doesn't seem to want to understand the argument being presented.

Sometimes people understand but disagree. This is pretty common in most other domains of inquiry outside the natural sciences (and is not unknown even there). Given that what is under discussion here is (i) the internal logic of a complex and partly unknown ruleset, and (ii) the implications of that logic in the hands of users with complex and partly unknown preferences, disagreement should not be surprising.

Putting it another way - I read quite a bit of economic and policy debate. Economists who devote their professional lives to the questions can't agree on the implications, for the Australian economy, of various policy decisions being taken by government. Why is it surprising that people on an RPG board, who are engaging in arguments written up in people's spare time and without all the relevant data to hand, should disagree on the implications for play of different rulesets?

There is no need to impute bad faith, incompetence, or a lack of mastery of relevant disciplines.

 

[Mallus]

There is no need to impute bad faith, incompetence, or a lack of mastery of relevant disciplines.

Some people enjoy doing so. It's one of the reasons why Hell is other people.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sometimes people understand but disagree.

True, but in this case it is usually evident from the form of their disagreement. When one assumes "Not-X" where "X" is a cornerstone of an argument, and, when the person making that argument decides to bow out, instantly claims "Not-X" as part of that person's argument, one must assume either bad faith or a lack of understanding.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Some people enjoy doing so. It's one of the reasons why Hell is other people.

Impossible in this case, though. Hell is clearly my continued involvement in this conversation.