Why is it so important?

[gizmo33]

I don't see how per-encounter design fails at mitigating the "five minutes a day of adventuring time" problem.

I think it's clearly a consequence of the reasoning that Celebrim has outlined. IF all you have are "per day", "per encounter", and "at will" abilities, then what does a challenging encounter look like in DnD? It doesn't look like an encounter that requires nothing but "at will" abilities because those are of no consequence to use. Think of those encounters in 3E right now that require only "at will" abilities from characters and have no effect on daily resources. Those encounters are insignificant.

So in 4E, just like in 3E, only encounters that tap daily resources will be considered significant (as will those that pose an immediate risk of death/dismemberment - where dismemberment can be considered a kind of "daily resource" cost.) Those types of encounters have a consequence that affects the rest of the adventure. Therefore, daily resources (that 80% level) will probably quickly evolve into the threshold for resting.

SO - if a single encounter uses the daily resources of the party, then it probably was exciting. But then the PCs are likely to rest. If it doesn't use the daily resources, then it's probably insignificant.

Thus, AFAICT the "per-encounter" logically fails to mitigate the thing it's trying to solve. The thing AFAICT that the "per-encounter" folks seem to be missing is that DnD already has "per-encounter" abilities for the character classes and that just simply causes the expectations to be revised.

 

[F4NBOY]

That is to say, they don't want to be in a game where people do things as they would "do it IRL", but rather they want to be in a game where people do things as they would do it in the fiction of Tolkien or whoever fascinates them. These players aren't motivated by either the thought, "What's the best way to win" or "How would this fiction character react if this fictional world was real?" They are thinking, "What would Conan do?"

I'm sorry to give you bad news, but in Tolkien's works things happen that way because they are meant to happen that way, not because it would be cooler or more dramatic or cinematographic. Same as Conan, I've seen him "playing by the rules" more than any other.

If you give us a piece of fantasy work where the characters just keep going only for
a "metagame"-cinematic reason, I'll probably show you nonsense actions that kill any trace of verosimilitude, break appart the whole experience and just make the movie/novel be considered cheesy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The only fantasy fiction the current Wizard imitates is Jack Vance. It doesn't do most of the other systems Raven mentioned AT ALL.

Yet, it seems closer to the other systems Raven mentioned, in play effect, than what we've been told about 4e. At least, IMHO.

If there is a spectrum, where Conan wizards are (say) 3, and Vancian wizards are (say) 10, then going to 20 doesn't seem to make things better to me.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

What I think you are seeing here is different players hoping that you can create a set of utopian mechanics wherein those things that are most tactically sound are also the things which create the most interesting narratives.

I very much doubt that'll happen, but that's what I see here also.

RC

 

[Dalberon]

Just a side note, but www.thesaurus.com is a wonderful resource. Color, credibility, genuineness, likeliness, likeness, plausibility, realism, resemblance, semblance, show, similarity are synonyms for verisimilitude. I think that poor word has been worn out in these forums....

 

[broghammerj]

If they don't sleep 8 hours per day they become fatigued.

What about the fact that fighter can swing a 12 lbs. Greataxe for 16 hours ininterruptly
without getting tired? Doesn't that hurt verosimilitude?

I think that may be a bit extreme considering no one is in combat for 16 hours straight. In fact most DND combats last only a few minutes of game time. Considering that 3.5 is based on 4 encounters per day, I don't think it's all that crazy. Besides I am simply using arguments by others regarding support for a per encounter mechanic.

Versimilitude flew out the window when I sat down to play a game with elves, dragons, and magic. I think it's a weak arguement at best.

 

[Rakin]

So are the mobs in 4E just going to walk around aimlessly while the characters rest up after every fight?

Was this already addressed?

I mean no matter what you're doing, if you're in a dungeon and you're making noise, I think it's pretty obvious that after an encounter it won't be long till something else finds it's way toward your group, due to the noise of combat or whatever.

I hated in MMO's where after every encounter you all just sat around watching the mindless driods walk back and forth.

Or is there not going to be any downtime at all? You just assume that your character can and does fight non stop for hours on end. That's some great stamina!

Either way, blech.

 

[Masquerade]

What about the fact that fighter can swing a 12 lbs. Greataxe for 16 hours ininterruptly without getting tired? Doesn't that hurt verosimilitude?

This is the kind of situation which doesn't require a printed rule to govern. It's common sense that she can't swing the axe that long without getting tired.

 

[Grog]

Where in the quoted passage by me, or in any of my argument, did you see the words allowed or required? So what makes you think I'm talking about either allowed or required?

In your response to me, you talked about metagaming parties resting after every encounter. That pretty clearly deals with how often parties are allowed to rest. You even went so far as to mention wandering monsters as a way to reduce the frequency with which the party can rest.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm sorry to give you bad news, but in Tolkien's works things happen that way because they are meant to happen that way...

A full treatment of Tolkien's works, a discussion of his motivations for writing, his religion, and the concept of divine providence that he's trying to illustrate is well outside the scope of this thread.

I will say that Tolkien would have gotten a real kick out of the lot of different uses you have for "I'm sorry to give you bad news..." To think I would live be 'good morning'ed by someone named F4NBOY.

So, anyway, you attack is a really weak one. I refuse to get involved in picking nits with you about something as tangential as whether the 'good' non-cheesy works of fantasy fiction have tactical versimilitude, because sure as shooting someone is going to bring up dumb but seemingly smart questions like, "Why didn't they just use the eagles to fly the ring to Mordor?" and the whole thread will be derailed while I try to explain things to the people that just don't get it.

Boiling down your attack to its essentials, I don't think it requires a long complex proof to show that many RPGers are trying to create a dramatic quasi-literary experience when they play, and they judge how fun the session was in effect by how good of a story it makes in the telling of it. If you question the truth of that then I doubt we can have a very productive conversation. Given the number of people who complain about the 9:00 - 9:05 adventuring day, I'd say that alot of people are at least in part motivated by a desire to create a rip roaring good story.