Why is it so important?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, I am asking you to provide the mechanics of the encounter. IOW, simply transcribe your encounter notes (with stats) or cut & paste them if you work on your computer. We shouldn't need to see a round-by-round to determine the level of mechanical interest.

No, I think you mean:

IOW, give me enough data to point at and say, "See - that wasn't mechanically interesting because of X, Y, and Z," despite the fact that you and your players felt it was mechanically interesting. You and your players are wrong, deluded, or uncertain about the definition of mechanically interesting. Allow me to elucidate on what "mechanically interesting" really means in another 30 paragraph post ...​

 

[Mallus]

I laughed.

Thanks. I feel better now.

 

[gizmo33]

I'm hoping someone will soon answer me and tell my how this encounter was of no "mechanical significance".

The "mechanical significance" thing is stressed over and over in a way that seems to imply that is distinct from chance of death. In some cases in your M&M example it is, but not being an M&M player I'm not really sure how much to make of this example. How significant is it to use action points in an encounter where you gain back an equal number or more? That to me, superficially, doesn't seem like a very interesting situation but since your example is set in M&M terms, I might be missing some points.

I don't know what happens in a game system where PCs can't die. In your M&M example, a PC "almost takes himself out by stabbing an alternate universe version of himself". I don't know what "takes out" means if it doesn't mean death. Furthermore, if PCs don't die, I don't know what is stopping them from just trying the objective over and over again until they succeed. I suppose there might be some sort of railroad type thing that prevents PCs from revisiting an objective once they've "failed" but, again, I don't really understand the context of this since it's happening in M&M.

Is there a DnD example?

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, I think you mean:

IOW, give me enough data to point at and say, "See - that wasn't mechanically interesting because of X, Y, and Z," despite the fact that you and your players felt it was mechanically interesting. You and your players are wrong, deluded, or uncertain about the definition of mechanically interesting. Allow me to elucidate on what "mechanically interesting" really means in another 30 paragraph post...​

Well, either it would indicate that JK and I have very different opinions of what is mechanically interesting or not, but since I have already agreed numerous times that win/lose scenarios are mechanically interesting, the only real benefit would be that I could answer his question. And, given my answers to this point, I would likely largely agree with him that it was mechanically interesting (guessing, of course, sight unseen).

Especially given, in the post where I made the request, I said specifically:

Yet, throughout this discussion, Gizmo33 and I have been clear that we agree with you that a win/lose scenario can be exciting. That tells us nothing about whether or not a situation where you clearly cannot lose can be exciting.​

The problem is only that I neither wish to refuse answering his question, nor can I answer it on the basis of the information provided.

"30 paragraph posts" and "timecubes" only appear when, after stating "The car was red" I receive an answer like "what do you mean by car? Which car? What do you mean by red? What if it was under the light of a blue star? What if I was wearing sunglasses?" I have tried to keep the waters as clear as possible, and have gone so far as to break down my argument in a point-by-point form. (shrug) I suppose I could plot out the argument thus far, including all objections and responses to objections. But it would seem like a colossal waste of time.

YMMV


RC

 

[shilsen]

That's a testable hypothesis.

Test it.

I'd say we just tested it when Jackelope King provided a detailed post and your only answer was that you needed more information.

But since you clearly need more, I'll give you an example from my campaigns. Five particularly buff and heavily equipped 9th level PCs ran up against a bunch of six muggers who were 2nd lvl rogues, with minimal equipment. It took exactly one round for the players to work out that there was no way they could lose. One of them alone could probably have taken all six of the enemies without any risk of being hurt. The fight lasted all of four rounds, and the only reason it lasted that long was because some of the PCs took turns fighting. I think maybe one PC or two lost hit pts, and less than 20% of their total. And the players had an absolute blast.

From a psychological viewpoint, they enjoyed it precisely because they couldn't lose. It let them feel powerful and appreciate how far their PCs had come from the days where they would have trouble with 2nd lvl enemies. On a mechanical level the fact that they were sure they wouldn't lose let them indulge in trying things mechanically that they normally don't. PCs tried - and succeeded - at tripping foes, sundering an enemy's weapon, flipping a dagger out of a rogue's hand and then catching it and then handing it back with a suggestion to try again, picking up an unconscious enemy and bludgeoning another one with it, etc. The wizard picked up a weapon for the first time in ages and beat down an enemy, and then summoned a creature he'd normally never use in a fight and had it chase another of the enemies around.

In short, even though - and more precisely, because - the PCs had absolutely no way of losing and knew it, they (and their players) enjoyed themselves thoroughly. The enjoyment was both story-based (look how powerful we are) and mechanical (look at all the cool things we can try). Admittedly the enjoyment would be lower if every fight or even most of the fights provided no risk of defeat at all, but if such encounters occur once in a while, I find that the group (and I've had the above happen with multiple groups) generally enjoys it a lot. That applies for all kinds of encounters, of course. Fights that take PCs to the edge of defeat are also exciting (mechanically and via story), but similarly, only if they aren't the norm.

So there you go. Time to test that hypothesis.

 

[gizmo33]

But since you clearly need more, I'll give you an example from my campaigns. Five particularly buff and heavily equipped 9th level PCs ran up against a bunch of six muggers who were 2nd lvl rogues, with minimal equipment.

Thanks, I think this answers my request above for a DnD based example. Now I guess I'll add "PCs get to show off their skills and try sub-optimal combat strategies" to my short list (the other one being "potential PC death") of things you mean when you say "mechanical interest". With such a list I will be able to make sense of the myriad of times that "mechanical interest" has been used on this thread without me having much of a sense of what that means.

Some of this is play-style dependant. I don't think that my players would be very entertained by the situation in your example. I'm not sure why but it might have to do with them generally being familiar enough with the DnD system that tripping an opponent isn't all that interesting, or maybe they're just curmudgeons, I'm not really sure.

In any case, if an "all per encounter" resource system is going to encourage me to rely on a list of things of "mechanical interest" and those things wouldn't entertain me or my players, I'd like to know that up front so I can avoid that game system. If there is actually a long list of things that would be interesting, I'd like to know that too.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd say we just tested it when Jackelope King provided a detailed post and your only answer was that you needed more information.

JK's post didn't provide the details needed to answer the question.

Yours however did:

On a mechanical level the fact that they were sure they wouldn't lose let them indulge in trying things mechanically that they normally don't. PCs tried - and succeeded - at tripping foes, sundering an enemy's weapon, flipping a dagger out of a rogue's hand and then catching it and then handing it back with a suggestion to try again, picking up an unconscious enemy and bludgeoning another one with it, etc. The wizard picked up a weapon for the first time in ages and beat down an enemy, and then summoned a creature he'd normally never use in a fight and had it chase another of the enemies around.​

That is an answer to the question posed. It's evem a good answer. I have long endorsed letting players have a chance to beat up folks that have no chance against them, so that they could measure their growth. I had never considered that to be a "mechanical" issue, but of course it is one.

With more data, JK's answer might be more important, though, simply because he sustains his entire game using these encounters, whereas I doubt you could do so in D&D by using the above method to sustain mechanical interest. Do you believe that you could sustain mechanical interest using only (or mostly) the above tactic?


RC

 

[shilsen]

Thanks, I think this answers my request above for a DnD based example. Now I guess I'll add "PCs get to show off their skills and try sub-optimal combat strategies" to my short list (the other one being "potential PC death") of things you mean when you say "mechanical interest". With such a list I will be able to make sense of the myriad of times that "mechanical interest" has been used on this thread without me having much of a sense of what that means.

Okay. I could be wrong, but I don't think I've really been mentioning of "mechanical interest" much, however, so there may be a lot of things other people mean which I'm not covering. I've actually been placing more emphasis on the issue of "potential PC death" being unnecessary to make an encounter interesting or challenging.

Some of this is play-style dependant. I don't think that my players would be very entertained by the situation in your example. I'm not sure why but it might have to do with them generally being familiar enough with the DnD system that tripping an opponent isn't all that interesting, or maybe they're just curmudgeons, I'm not really sure.

I'd say almost everything in the game is play-style mediated. The interesting thing with the encounter I mentioned is that it gave players a chance to try things they normally didn't. So the people who normally never try tripping, sundering, disarming, etc. were the ones trying it, the mage took a break from spellcasting to kick the crap out of an enemy in melee, and so on.

In any case, if an "all per encounter" resource system is going to encourage me to rely on a list of things of "mechanical interest" and those things wouldn't entertain me or my players, I'd like to know that up front so I can avoid that game system. If there is actually a long list of things that would be interesting, I'd like to know that too.

Why does the question even matter? It seems fairly certain that 4e is not going to use an "all per encounter" resource system (emphasis on "all"). So unless you've got some game system in mind which has that kind of resource system and which you're considering playing, why do you care?

With more data, JK's answer might be more important, though, simply because he sustains his entire game using these encounters, whereas I doubt you could do so in D&D by using the above method to sustain mechanical interest. Do you believe that you could sustain mechanical interest using only (or mostly) the above tactic?

I doubt I could, but why would I (or anyone) ever want to? I seriously doubt there are many, or even any, DMs out there whose PCs only (or mostly) encounter enemies so far weaker than them that the enemy can't threaten them at all. That would, in all likelihood, be boring for them, just like it would likely be boring to always fight enemies who have a good chance of TPKing you. There's the option for variety in difficulty of encounters and a DM is free to avail of the option (whether using a primarily attrition-based or primarily encounter-based system) and almost certainly will, so whether you can sustain mechanical interest using only the above tactic is irrelevant.

 

[pemerton]

Ah, but if you are going to give Class A flexability compared to Class B, then Class B must get something to compensate, right? So, if Class A gets flexability and unlimited resources, and Class B gets no flexability and unlimited resources, there's going to be a problem.

The solution, of course, is to simply drop the fighter as "unfun". Perhaps we can replace him with some form of Wuxia character that has both flexability and unlimited resources.....say a spell-casting warmage?

<cut to subsequent post>

Balanced does not mean identical.

Two classes can be balanced, even though one is a combat machine and the other is not.

There are ways of being "balanced but different" within combat that don't simply involve giving one character at-will moderate damage abilities and the other character limited-use high damage abilities. Jackelope King has given examples, drawn from his M&M game.

Furthermore, not every way of achieving such balance are equally good game design. For many players, at least, it is a defect in game design if effective play requires them to regularly miss a turn. This is what D&D requires wizards to do, if they are not to nova and thereby give rise to the 15-minute day (and also to overshadow the fighters).

As far as I can tell, 4e is looking to give wizards different options: more options, but different from damage-dealing (wizards, we are told, will be "controllers"). It is also looking to give fighters more options.

I don't know why you suggest that fighter's per-encounter or per-day resources must be spells or even wuxia abilities. There is nothing magical or wuxia about a once-per-day "second wind", or a once-per-minute "mighty blow", or any number of abilities that I'm sure the design team can conceive of.

As to the question, why balance combat effectiveness? Because, as currently played at least, combat takes up about 75% of the time at the gaming table in the typical D&D game. So a PC who is not effective in most combats, most of the time, means a player who is frequently having nothing to do at the table.

Though we will note, in our examples, the wizard who uses his high-level spells and then wants to rest instead of using his mid- & low-level spells is, in fact, doing more than the fighter in those encounters overall.

While not by any means universal, I imagine that there is a contingent who isn't actually interested in balance -- they want more power, now, and they want no downside to it....even when the downside is only "balanced with everyone else". Which is why we strangely hear that the wizard blows away the fighter power-wise, and yet strangely hear a call to give the wizard more power to balance him.

To give a wizard per-encounter abilities does give the wizard more powers (= abilities), but not necessarily more power (if, as is almost certain, the effects of per-day spells are changed). For a player of a wizard to want to be able to do something effective every turn is not a desire for some sort of juvenile instant gratification - it is a desire to have fun playing a game.

 

[pemerton]

The "mechanical significance" thing is stressed over and over in a way that seems to imply that is distinct from chance of death.

<cut to a subsequent post>

I will be able to make sense of the myriad of times that "mechanical interest" has been used on this thread without me having much of a sense of what that means.

RC introduced the notion of "mechanical significance", as a potential property of an encounter: in RC's sense an encounter is "mechanically significant" if it affects the party's resources available for subsequent encounters (whether by addition or attrition).

I believe I may have introduced the notion of "mechanical interest", meaning any sort of interest or pleasure derived in play through deployment of the mechanics of the game. 1st ed AD&D has very little mechanical interest in this sense, just because its mechanics are so sparse, and a great deal of action resolution essentially bypasses them, being mediated directly between the players and the GM. Core 3E has quite a lot of mechanics, both in character build and action resolution, but does not allow for the sort of mechanical interest that the introducion of per-encounter resources will permit, because it does not give players a sufficient range of complex choices during the course of encounter resolution.

How significant is it to use action points in an encounter where you gain back an equal number or more? That to me, superficially, doesn't seem like a very interesting situation

Potentially hugely significant. I don't play M&M either, but from Jackelope King's description it sounds similar to games like HeroQuest or (under a certain reading of its ruleset) HARP, in which Action/Hero/Fate Points are earned by engaging with certain goals/themes specified by the player for his or her character, and may be spent in order to pursue success/development of those same goals/themes. In such a system, every time a player earns or spends an Action Point, they are getting what they came to the gaming table for, namely, the experience of plot or thematic exploration that they want to engage in.

I don't know what happens in a game system where PCs can't die.

<snip>

Furthermore, if PCs don't die, I don't know what is stopping them from just trying the objective over and over again until they succeed.

In a system in which PCs don't die, they pursue goals, succeed or fail at them, forge or destroy relationships with one another, with NPCs, or with other elements of the gameworld. They prosper or decline.

As for the issue of "pursuit of objectives": currently one of the PCs in my RM campaign, a quiet scholar and weaponsmith who also happens to be a master of several twin-swords fighting styles, is attempting to woo an enchantress that the party rescued from a demon's castle on the ethereal plane. As part of his pursuit of this objective, over the past two levels he has developed a skill rank in Seduction at each level - this mechanical change to the character corresponds, in the game world, to an attempt by the PC to improve his ability to relate romantically to other people. Eventually, the PC will have to make his intentions plain to this NPC. When he does, she may or may not rebuff him. If she does, he won't die - but for obvious reasons, he may not be able to try again! - at least, not until he does something that makes her change her mind about him.

Now this is only one small sub-plot of a much bigger campaign, but I use it to illustrate a more general point: if the gameworld changes in response to the actions taken by the PC, then "objectives" will not remain static in response to the PCs' interactions with them, whether or not the PCs die. It also illustrates how mechanics can feature as an element of play (in this case, the character build mechanics) without PC death being a relevant consideration.

Another general point: many games are not "infiltrate and loot" games of the sort that 1st ed AD&D (judging from the play advice given in the 2nd half of the PHB) is primarily aimed at. For these different sorts of game, there are all sorts of ways of failing without dying.

Those three questions remain unanswered, except by Mustrum_Ridcully

And me.

Everyone else seems to be ignoring those questions, or answering something other than those questions.

I answered them in detail.

Is there a DnD example?

<cut to a subsequent post>

Thanks, I think this answers my request above for a DnD based example.

<snip>

Some of this is play-style dependant. I don't think that my players would be very entertained by the situation in your example.

<snip>

In any case, if an "all per encounter" resource system is going to encourage me to rely on a list of things of "mechanical interest" and those things wouldn't entertain me or my players, I'd like to know that up front so I can avoid that game system. If there is actually a long list of things that would be interesting, I'd like to know that too.

A core D&D example of the sort of mechanical interest that per-encounter resources permit cannot be given, because the requisite mechanics do not exist in core D&D. Jackelope King has given examples derived from M&M. I have given examples derived from RM, as well as examples from CCGs, and analogies drawing on non-gaming aspects of life which also provide pleasure through participation in complex activities.

If it is possible to make a "clear win" encounter one in which there is mechanical interest, then this would make it more clear how such a thing could be done.

This is not true. First, by analogy: because it is possible for me to have a philosophical argument with an undergraduate student which I cannot lose, but which is nevertheless interesting, it does not follow that I can have such an argument with my 17-month-old daughter.

Second, to tackle the issue directly: it may be that a mechanically interesting "clear win" encounter acquires its interest from having certain properties which the example (4 20ths vs 4 kobolds) does not have. One such property might be this: the certainty of the win is a consequence of clever decision making by the players. Thus, I suggested in my reply that a better example might substitute stone giants for kobolds.