Why is it so important?

[danzig138]

You see? When I'm playing D&D, be it as a player or a DM, the verisimilitude of the setting is one of the most important aspects to me.

It's also one of the most important aspects for me from both sides of the Wall. I don't fudge anything to deal with it. The assassins might not wait another day, and the group will just have to deal with it. The goblin horde might attack the beseiged town in 3 or 4 waves in a day, and the group will just have to deal with it. For me, the versimilitude (I hate spelling that word) requires that sometimes things will happen when they group isn't prepared for it. And they need to suck it up and deal with it (or run).

What I'm reading from people in favors of these systems is basically "It's not fair if my character isn't primed and ready to go all the time." It's an attitude I find slightly distasteful. Part of the fun for me* is the fact that I might not be at peak when the fan gets hit. Hell, I might be in the middle of sleeping while Bob is on watch.

Actually, let's see if this explains what I'm hearing more - I'll use a slightly more modern example.

The PCs have been tasked with aiding a town in repelling bandits. The PCs have about 5 clips of ammo each for their guns. As the attacks rpogress, they're running low on ammo, they're having to think about how to repel the attacks, and if they can salavage anything during the off-time between the attacks. What I'm hearing from people is basically "My gun shouldn't run out of ammo."

That said, I do think a different magic system could be better. With some hacking, tinkering, pounding, and pasting, I"ve found the EoM/Mythic Earth works alright (I was always a fan of the system from Realms of Magic). I do not subscribe to the philosophy that every character should get to use his special abilities every encounter. Sometimes, things work in your favor, sometimes they don't.

Not for you, I realize. But the game isnt being designed for you.

Truth you speak bra'man. Of course, if everyone would just accept these, this forum wouldn't be nearly as much. . . fun.

I can understand "It will take me X minutes to rest/refocus/meditate/gather my chi" (which is how per-encounter works in IH/SWSE/Bo9S).

As I noted in another thread, if this is the route they go with, that's more palatable than what the term "per encounter" indicates, especially for maintaining versimilitude. But it still smacks of "I shouldn't run out of bullets!"





*See how I noted "fun for me"? That's because I'm not willing to dictate what is and isn't fun in general, unlike so many people are jumping up to do (although I haven't seen you do so, so cool), including the designers.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Some of my most memorable D&D fights just wouldn't be as memorable with per encounter rules.

"Oh crap, there's Lord Strahd, I'm down half my hit points, the cleric is dead, and the wizard is almost out of spells. We're screwed."

That encounter, wether it results in a tpk or not, will be remembered. And if we win, it'll damn sure be, because we took a stand when the chips were down and won. Nothing memorable about a walk off homerun. Sure, it's nice, but 3 years from now, who will remember. Kirk Gibson's shot, however, will be remembered forever.

 

[Wormwood]

"Oh crap, there's Lord Strahd, I'm down half my hit points, the cleric is dead, and the wizard is almost out of spells. We're screwed."

Couldn't that exact quote be applied if Strahd delays his entrance until the end of a long and difficult encounter?

 

[Treebore]

Couldn't that exact quote be applied if Strahd delays his entrance until the end of a long and difficult encounter?

SSSHHHHH!!! I'm running Ravenloft online in October for three groups! Don't give away one of his nastiest tactics!! Shame on you!!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, let's see if this explains what I'm hearing more - I'll use a slightly more modern example.

And I'll fix your example!

The PCs have been tasked with aiding a town in repelling bandits. The PCs all have different weapons. Two have Berettas, which only have 9-round clips; those PCs can carry 5 clips at a time, but can get more from the ammo dump as often as they'd like. One PC has an MP-5 with an extended, 100-round magazine. He's only got one backup clip. And you? You have a bazooka. And 1 shot. And as many rocks as you want to pick up.

Who's going to have more fun in the ensuing gunfight?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Here are a few examples: [. . .]

Uh, so in the EN World threads you linked to there. . . maybe three (four, tops?) individuals, out of the thousands of regular posters here. . . OK. And yeah, some were just talking about warlocks, in the sense that they are cool, but not necessarily any more cool than say, wizards. Er.

I don't generally regard Usenet and the WotC boards very highly. It's a bias, I know. But still. If there's anything really noteworthy there, let me know, OK? I will listen (i.e., read).

Unearthed Arcana, specifically the spell "recharging" rules. These were not created arbitrarily for no reason.

No, they were created specifically for the reason of catering to those DMs who might like to try those particular house rules / rules variants / call them what you will. Most D&D DMs and players probably don't even own or have access to UA. And of those who do, I suspect that the majority don't use the recharging rules. So. . . um, yeah.

The upshot is that Vancian magic forces either the fifteen-minute adventuring day, or it forces pointless and boring "attrition" encounters. These are both problems.

So, a few posters in EN World's Rules forum, and a few more in this thread, possibly a smallish (but not doubt LOUD) bunch on *cough* Usenet, and uh, Gleemax or whatever. . . hm. . .

It still looks like the "upshot" according to a rather vocal minority.

Getting rid of Vancian limitations, but keeping other limitations (such as a stronger emphasis on per-encounter limitations) means that every encounter can be interesting without forcing a fifteen-minute adventuring day.

(emphasis mine)

This is entirely subjective. Many D&D players and DMs would completely disagree, as it so happens.

 

[jasin]

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.

They better have some way of finding the entrance to the rope trick!

 

[Stalker0]

A lot of focus seems to be on the pc side of this, but in a lot of ways its better for dms/npcs as well.

Pcs in 3e have to conserve resources, npc do not. Which creates the scenario where the npc wizard will go nova to destroy the party because for him there's nothing to lose. The system is designed where wizards spend X% resources, but when npc are tossing 100% the balance is off.

In an encounter based system, both npcs and pcs are throwing out the guns.

 

[hong]

Uh, so in the EN World threads you linked to there. . . maybe three (four, tops?) individuals, out of the thousands of regular posters here. . . OK. And yeah, some were just talking about warlocks, in the sense that they are cool, but not necessarily any more cool than say, wizards. Er.

I don't generally regard Usenet and the WotC boards very highly. It's a bias, I know. But still. If there's anything really noteworthy there, let me know, OK? I will listen (i.e., read).


No, they were created specifically for the reason of catering to those DMs who might like to try those particular house rules / rules variants / call them what you will. Most D&D DMs and players probably don't even own or have access to UA. And of those who do, I suspect that the majority don't use the recharging rules. So. . . um, yeah.


So, a few posters in EN World's Rules forum, and a few more in this thread, possibly a smallish (but not doubt LOUD) bunch on *cough* Usenet, and uh, Gleemax or whatever. . . hm. . .

It still looks like the "upshot" according to a rather vocal minority.

In which case, please post evidence for the existence of the majority.

 

[jasin]

Actually, let's see if this explains what I'm hearing more - I'll use a slightly more modern example.

The PCs have been tasked with aiding a town in repelling bandits. The PCs have about 5 clips of ammo each for their guns. As the attacks rpogress, they're running low on ammo, they're having to think about how to repel the attacks, and if they can salavage anything during the off-time between the attacks. What I'm hearing from people is basically "My gun shouldn't run out of ammo."

An alternate look: the PCs are a SWAT team who have been tasked with assaulting a criminal hideout. They storm the first room in a short but vicious fight with tear gas and flashbang grenades thrown around like there's no tomorrow, because the criminals are so well prepared that this could be essential to victory. With the first room clear, the team catches their breath in front of the next door and someone says "Um... I'm out of ammo. And no more grenades either. I think we should head back to HQ to resupply. Hey, I know, maybe we should bring more than one clip and one grenade each, so we can reload in the field, between fights?"

The truth is somewhere in between, but it's certainly not as simple and one-sided as "per encounter supporters just want a gun of endless ammo on autopilot".