Why is it so important?

[IanArgent]

Assuming there is an element of exploration in a given adventure, where the PCs are uncertain as to what the day will bring and what they might face in the way of challenges, this is, IMO, perfectly acceptable. To assume a dungeon delve, the PCs are going into a uncertain terriroty with a limited amount of information in order to explore it, knowing full well they are likley to come across dangerous obstacles. being prudent just makes sense, given the uncertainty of the situation. Should the PCs happen to find a secure location to hole up and rest before they need to, it is time to make a decision: press on, hoping to be able to either find another such place or return to this one, or hole up and get back to full force before moving on even if they aren't down that many resources. The game is about such decisions, and this one in particular is the perfect kind of decision for an exploratory game.

3rd ed is explicitly balanced around the 4-encounters/adventuring day paradigm in character design. (That's not my opinion, that's the designers statements in the DMGs and other places). The problem with this is that the players do not always have enough information to make an informed decision as to whether it is appropriate to rest or not. And if they make an inappropriate decison, it's very hard on the DM to deal with. Either he has to handle the characters having more power available to them because they rested early, or not enough power available to them because they rested late. If ceratin classes were not balanced such that the vast majority of their power availability was dependent on a per-day discharge cycle, this would be a lot less fo a problem. As it is though, the current system can have such a huge mismatch in available power if rest periods are incorrectly timed that it can be very hard to recover from such a mistiming.

I see a lot of thinking on this thread that the DM is "against" the players; that the game is one between the DM and the players. I don't subscribe to that philosophy. I'm telling a story with the help (and sometimes interference) of the players; just as they are telling their own stories with the help of the other players and mine (and likewise interference). I am attempting to challenge the players, true. But IMHO, fun > realism; fun > mechanics. So give us fun mechanics.

If I want realism, I'll play ASL

 

[Reynard]

But the problem is that D&D is meant to represent the genre presented in fantasy fiction (including High Fantasy and Swords & Sorcery).

Is it? D&D was, and is, certainly inspired by fantasy fiction of various sorts -- not to mention other genres, as well -- but I don't think is qualifies as or is intended to be a simulation of any of those genres. D&D is a game and therefore couldn't simulate fiction if it wanted to. the D&D magic system for 30 years now, for example, was inspired by one particular author's work, and was chosen not because it was EGG's "favorite" but because it best suited the game. The changes to that system with 4E aren't based upon rying to more closely simulate a different author's work; the changes are likewise based upon making the game "batter" from a certain perspective held by the game designers at apparently 75% of players.

Resource management isn't supposed to part of the genre, it is supposed to be part of the game. Or it was, anyway.

 

[Reynard]

I see a lot of thinking on this thread that the DM is "against" the players; that the game is one between the DM and the players. I don't subscribe to that philosophy. I'm telling a story with the help (and sometimes interference) of the players; just as they are telling their own stories with the help of the other players and mine (and likewise interference). I am attempting to challenge the players, true. But IMHO, fun > realism; fun > mechanics. So give us fun mechanics.

I am not against the players either. i want them to "win" -- I just want them to work for it. But I am certainly not telling a story. We do that afterwards over a couple brews.

 

[IanArgent]

I am not against the players either. i want them to "win" -- I just want them to work for it. But I am certainly not telling a story. We do that afterwards over a couple brews.

Then what are you doing?

 

[The Little Raven]

But I am certainly not telling a story.

So, you just run collections of unrelated scenes and encounters, rather than having the encounters have meaning in a larger story?

(Not trying to disparage your DM-ing style by any means, but I'm just curious as to whether that's how you run games.)

 

[Jackelope King]

Is it? D&D was, and is, certainly inspired by fantasy fiction of various sorts -- not to mention other genres, as well -- but I don't think is qualifies as or is intended to be a simulation of any of those genres. D&D is a game and therefore couldn't simulate fiction if it wanted to. the D&D magic system for 30 years now, for example, was inspired by one particular author's work, and was chosen not because it was EGG's "favorite" but because it best suited the game. The changes to that system with 4E aren't based upon rying to more closely simulate a different author's work; the changes are likewise based upon making the game "batter" from a certain perspective held by the game designers at apparently 75% of players.

Resource management isn't supposed to part of the genre, it is supposed to be part of the game. Or it was, anyway.

So D&D shouldn't attempt to emulate popular fantasy fiction or support gameplay models as well as it does Gygaxian exploration?

Are there any threads that complain about "sameness for sameness' sake"?

But in all seriousness, everything we've seen so far just seems to suggest that the game is moving away from a system which arbitrarily forces a certain number of encounters in a day to keep all the classes balanced. Resource-tracking isn't going the way of the dodo... it's just becoming a smaller part of the game in some respects and being refocused to make each individual encounter more satisfying on its own.

 

[Jackelope King]

I am not against the players either. i want them to "win" -- I just want them to work for it. But I am certainly not telling a story. We do that afterwards over a couple brews.

So what connects the encounters and challenges in your game? What gives them context? Why to the characters head off to explore the dungeon in the first place?

I'm not being snarky. I honestly want to know what your approach is to creating/playing in an adventure.

 

[pemerton]

I can see where the difference in tone and playstyle might suggest per encounter abilities would be beneficial. But that doesn't mean per-day resources are "bad" or poor design as some have suggested, just geared toward a different sort of game. The problem is that by eliminating or seriously downplaying per-day resources has the effect of invalidating a playstyle, where simple includinga per-encounter resource model in addition to the per day resource model (for example, having both a Vancian Wizard and a Warlock as viable character options) would have broadened the possible playstyles of the game instead of limiting them.

It's good to see a defender of old-style play recognising that per-encounter resources permit an approach to play (all PCs acting every round, intricate mix of intra-encounter decisions, etc) that pure per-day resources do not, simply because there are not enough of them to support that sort of play.

I think, however, that you are underestimating the implications of trying to build a game that includes both a (Vancian) Wizard and a Warlock. This would be, in effect, two different games - because you would need the same for warriors, for rogues, for clerics, etc. And playing with a party containing both Wizards and Warlocks would lead to all the problems (nova-ing, 15-minute day, etc) that the new design is attempting to eliminate.

I think the designers have to make a decision - a choice between two very different sorts of RPGing - and have done so.

 

[Reynard]

It's good to see a defender of old-style play recognising that per-encounter resources permit an approach to play (all PCs acting every round, intricate mix of intra-encounter decisions, etc) that pure per-day resources do not, simply because there are not enough of them to support that sort of play.

Not just permit, but enforce. it so happens it isn't a playstyle that I am interested in, which is what makes this singular aspect of 4E a deal breaker for me. You can be sure though that I will steal some 4e goodies from other areas for my 3rd edition 9and even earlier) games, so long as those new ideas promote the playstyle I am looking for in any particular campaign.

I think the designers have to make a decision - a choice between two very different sorts of RPGing - and have done so.

You are probably right. Wishful thinking more than anything else, i guess.

 

[pemerton]

Not just permit, but enforce.

Agreed.