Why is it so important?

[Imaro]

To give a bit more background, the last campaign I ran was for a Bo9S-heavy group. 1 warblade, 1 swordsage, 1 crusader, 1 homebrew archer, 1 "geomantic channeler" (tweaked dragon shaman). All 10th level.

No spellcasting, almost no per-day abilities. I certainly never ran into the problem of supposedly-boring fights because abilities refreshed easily. That's because each fight had stakes that were significant, or took place in a new and interesting location, or there was a significant risk of people being killed if they got overconfident (it's quite possible for a bunch of CR 8 monsters to take down even a 10th level warblade, if he gets isolated). It's not that hard.

So...instead of addressing the problem in the rules, a DM should fix it himself...uhm ok.

The difference between D&D and Star Wars Saga ed. is that D&D doesn't use non-heroic classes ie "mooks". Now the designers have already stated you will be able to fight 20 goblins at level 1 so I'm assuming the game will be geared more like SW than the overiding principle of 3.5 even with Bo9S. It has been stated there will be mook rules as well, so I don't think actual play experience with D&D (is healing an ability that refreshes per encounter in 3.5? It is in SW, as long as you've got the right power and enough vitality.) can be cited as closer to what 4e will be like than SW. In fact, no spellcasting means you didn't have a healer so while they may have some per-encounter abilities...hp's were still a resource they had to manage in a wider sense.

 

[gizmo33]

Good! The less of the s*mul*tionist baggage from 3E remains, the better.

That's a matter of opinion of course. In this regard one person's simulationist baggage is another person's versimilitude, which, as I've said before, is an aspect of DnD that people used to point out as making it distinct from World of Warcraft. At this point I'm not sure that any of your examples of what constitutes an "interesting encounter" in DnD can't be done better in WoW.

 

[hong]

So...instead of addressing the problem in the rules, a DM should fix it himself...uhm ok.

Huh?

The difference between D&D and Star Wars Saga ed. is that D&D doesn't use non-heroic classes ie "mooks".

I had mooks too. In one fight I had an 11th level necromancer summon up about 20 skeletons (which I knew perfectly well would be completely useless); in another fight, the group met 20 wights. The fun in mooks is not in the tactical challenge, but in the opportunities for badassitude. Think Legolas and Gimli competing to see how many orcs they could kill. For the wight encounter, I amused myself by betting on how many rounds it would take the PCs to kill them all (and move on to the two 10th level vampires, who were much more dangerous).

Now if you're going to meet 20 skeletons or wights in EVERY fight, then that could certainly become boring. But they also had fights with, for example, ~12 8th level thugs, who while individually outclassed, could still lay down some serious hurt. Just because a fight involves large numbers doesn't mean there's automatically no serious threat.

Now the designers have already stated you will be able to fight 20 goblins at level 1 so I'm assuming the game will be geared more like SW than the overiding principle of 3.5 even with Bo9S. It has been stated there will be mook rules as well, so I don't think actual play experience with D&D (is healing an ability that refreshes per encounter in 3.5? It is in SW, as long as you've got the right power and enough vitality.) can be cited as closer to what 4e will be like than SW. In fact, no spellcasting means you didn't have a healer so while they may have some per-encounter abilities...hp's were still a resource they had to manage in a wider sense.

Nope. Note the dragon shaman, and the crusader can also heal in a pinch. What's more, most of the time I only had one encounter per day so even the per-day stuff didn't matter.

 

[hong]

That's a matter of opinion of course. In this regard one person's simulationist baggage is another person's versimilitude, which, as I've said before, is an aspect of DnD that people used to point out as making it distinct from World of Warcraft. At this point I'm not sure that any of your examples of what constitutes an "interesting encounter" in DnD can't be done better in WoW.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Heh, I agree. You can also extend this to characters and say "each character's actions should have its own motivation, and not just be a matter of resources and strategy". Which would, incidentally, pretty much eliminate this weird "Start at 9, encounter at 9:15, rest at 9:30" problem that is assigned to 3.X and that has never cropped up in any of my 3.X games, which is why it has me scratching my head where the heck that came from in the first place.

A campaign that rewards a certain style of play can avoid these problems (as well as the Christmas Tree effect, etc.) completely. However, this is because the campaign offers rewards and incentives in addition to/in replacement of those in the game itself. Players in general tend to take actions that they learn are rewarded.

This is why I said, earlier,

It is my opinion that a game designer should first ask "What are players intended to do?" and then "What incentives can I give them to do that?" before asking "What is fun?" Simply put, it is easier to make a game with clear goals, and incentives to follow those goals, fun than it is to make players do your "fun" stuff if they are rewarded for doing something else entirely.​

If one of the goals of the designers is to limit the damage of mediocre DMs, then the problem that Gizmo33 (and others) are bringing up is an important one to consider. The designers should have some idea of what their "ideal" D&D game is like, and build in rewards for playing in that way.

IMHO.

RC

 

[ruleslawyer]

You miss the point (at least as I understand it). The problem with the 9-9:15 adventuring day is that adventurers rest as soon as they use their significant resources. A significant resource, therefore, is any resource that is not always available.

Looks like I'm not missing the point. You're just invoking the same tautology. A per-day resource does not necessarily constitute a significant portion of the party's resources, especially in a system in which several critical resources reset after each encounter.

In any event, Gizmo33 hasn't missed your point that "a party of PCs under average expectations will forge onward until a significant portion of its resources is expended." He is, rather, saying that your definition of a "significant portion" is incorrect because it relies on the idea of insignificant resources being considered significant.

RC

Except, of course, that he's attempting to claim that per-day resources automatically constitute a "significant portion of the party's resources" simply because they're per day. Doesn't work that way, especially once you shift a large number of resources over to the per-encounter paradigm.

But I'm not going to make the same argument more than twice, so I'm done here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Looks like I'm not missing the point. You're just invoking the same tautology. A per-day resource does not necessarily constitute a significant portion of the party's resources, especially in a system in which several critical resources reset after each encounter.

You say that, but Gizmo33 has an argument as to why the above is incorrect, and I have yet to see either a counter to his argument or an argument that supports the above statement.


RC

 

[Mallus]

There's a sweet spot though, and the more of these versimilitude things you dispense with, the less real game reason that the PCs have to interact with the world, short of just killing things and taking their stuff.

It's been my experience that players interact with the parts of the in-game world that they find entertaining, which, practically speaking, has little or nothing to do with whether those elements create a sense of verisimilitude.

Players will talk to, and engage with, interesting NPC's (and their attendant plot lines) as soon as the DM provides them with some to do that with.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

A campaign that rewards a certain style of play can avoid these problems (as well as the Christmas Tree effect, etc.) completely. However, this is because the campaign offers rewards and incentives in addition to/in replacement of those in the game itself. Players in general tend to take actions that they learn are rewarded.

The simple problem I have with all this "resource management problem" posts right now is that I never ran adventures that were based around the simple entering and plundering of a dungeon outside of any other story element. The heroes are always under some time pressure, and can't simply go back to rest after every major encounter.

Best example I have comes from an L5R game, where a group of magistrates had to travel into the Shadowlands to return the Hare Clan sword. They simply didn't WANT to spend even more time in there, because the mere presence could already taint them if they were careless. They also wanted to get the sword and get back to the Clan castle because they knew there was a big Scorpion army on its way to raze the clan holdings, and they wanted to be beack before all they could return to were smoking ruins.

No group of people in their right mind that are on their way somewhere would rest after only one encounter if they could still make 8 hours of travel, either. And if you need to get somewhere within a few days, wasting 8 more hours because the wizard feels naked without 75% of his spells is not an option.

Hong said the most precious resource in many scenarios is time...which is a factor in most of the more "cinematic" stories, too. Classic dungeon crawling is a planned exploration of an underground area, with the equipment, companions and organization that comes with that. Heroic adventures are tension-filled and, in many parts, fast-paced affairs where the heroes simply can't sit down and rest again after the first fight, but have to press on to keep the evil cleric from sacrificing the princess to his dark god before the eclipse...or something like that.

It's where the character-playing aspect of D&D comes into play, in contrast to the stats-playing aspect that seems to be brought up more and more often when it comes to discussions about "per day" vs. "per encounter" abilities.

 

[hong]

It's been my experience that players interact with the parts of the in-game world that they find entertaining, which, practically speaking, has little or nothing to do with whether those elements create a sense of verisimilitude.

Players will talk to, and engage with, interesting NPC's (and their attendant plot lines) as soon as the DM provides them with some to do that with.

That's my experience too. My players certainly didn't have any hesitation talking to NPCs whom I told them straight up were built using villain classes, and had abilities that PCs didn't have. No verisimilitudity here!