Why is it so important?

[Mallus]

However if the tactics of the fight break down to the same thing over and over again(more likely when you have per-encounter abilities then per day abilities) it becomes more an exercise in tediousness IMHO.

Characters using a single tactic to the exclusion of others has more to do with the effectiveness/utility of that tactic, relative to the others in their bag of tricks.

Which means the problems lies in the tactic, not the interval.

 

[hong]

Yea, so why change the existing system to do something that you don't need to do anyway? Folks that want to have big Armageddon battles can still do so and the per-day resources automatically become per-encounter resources.

Because I might want to have more than one Armageddon battle in one day, if the circumstances dictate that it would be reasonable to do so. And in fact, there were at least two occasions where I had 2 big stand-up fights in a day. The fact that I, personally, like to have isolated climactic encounters doesn't mean the system should be such that it allows only a choice of that, or a flurry of little ones.

 

[hong]

The difference between a movie and RPGs is that movies can manipulate your perception of risk whereas in RPGs the perception of risk is based much more on the numbers, and players tend to know alot about the numbers involved in any conflict. There's no reason in the LotR movie that the audience can dismiss even a lone orc getting lucky with a crossbow and killing a PC - but the chances of that sort of thing in an RPG are so remote that it's never a serious consideration. Aragorn being charged by a mean looking orc in a movie would be somewhat interesting, but the same thing in an RPG is not.

If your sole metric of interestingness is tactical challenge, then yes. Thankfully, I also use other metrics in addition to tactical challenge.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Just as a thought experiment, would it be possible to create a bridge between "per encounter" abilities and "per day" abilities by using the current system of magic with slightly different spells?

Imagine, for example, a 1st level spell called Cantrip that has a duration of 1 hour/level and enables a caster to use any of the 0 level spells, 1/round and 1 at the same time only.

Or a Magic Missile spell that isn't insta-hit but requires a ranged touch attack, has a medium range, a duration of 1 hour/level and allows a caster to create 1 force missile and fire it off as a standard action, causing 1d4+1 points of damage on a successful ranged touch attack? Maybe add an option that allows him to discharge 1 hour worth of missiles (600 if my math doesn't fail me) to create a burst effect that causes 1d4+1 points of damage to every creature in a 30' radius?

Would those spells be overpowering as 1st level spells? Would it change the current gameplay drastically? The caster still has to manage a spell slot as resource, but gets longer use out of it. A bit like the old Melf's Minute Meteors, only with a longer duration (1 hour vs. 1 round/level).

(Going to post this in the other threads about "per encounter" abilities, too, in case this here devolves into a "hong vs. the rest" slugfest again. )

 

[Mallus]

When resource management goes away as a skill...

A skill that's pegged to a relatively predictable schedule of threats, implicitly player-initiated, for the most part (the classic 'one more room' syndrome). That's my biggest beef with relying on resource management to provide a significant amount of the challenge. It tends to fall apart the more unpredictable things happen, when the campaign takes place in a more dynamic environment where trouble frequently kicks down the PC's door, Chandler-style. In which case minor ablative encounters are rendered meaningless, unforeseeable encounters leave the PC's unable to take meaningful actions, etc.

The 'resource management mini-game' ends up in either rote encounters or a guessing game. Which is why I much prefer systems where the challenge lies in which meaningful action the player takes, not if a player decides to perform one, or is saving him- or herself for later...

Games with limited-to-no resources management (like M&M, which really only has a single multipurpose player resource, the Hero Point) can be just as tactically rich as management heavy one like 3.5.

What that means is that every 'interesting' encounter involves the possibility of player/party death.

Not necessarily. You're leaving out 'defeat', which in no way needs to imply death, and the failure to achieve desired goals/objectives.

When you have engaged players with some investment in the game world, then there's no need for death to on the line in order to make an encounter interesting.

 

[Imaro]

Characters using a single tactic to the exclusion of others has more to do with the effectiveness/utility of that tactic, relative to the others in their bag of tricks.

Which means the problems lies in the tactic, not the interval.

Uhm...read my earlier post. The power Force Slam was purely an example.

My problem isn't with Force Slam, it's with the fact that it can be used over and over again...there's no reason for real thought or strategy when you can bust the door down, unleash every force power you have in a bombardment and not worry about what will happen later.

 

[Mallus]

My problem isn't with Force Slam, it's with the fact that it can be used over and over again...there's no reason for real thought or strategy when you can bust the door down, unleash every force power you have in a bombardment and not worry about what will happen later.

I don't know... there are games out there where the PC's have significant 'at-will' powers which still manage to be tactically rich & satisfying, like M&M (2e). Our campaign started back up again last week, and the session was one long, beautiful fight against Nazi occultists and the misguided Valkyrie who love them...

Maybe the per-encounter rules in Saga ed. are just not-so-good? Not an indictment of the whole approach? Or maybe, like any system more heavily weighted toward specific genre emulation (also like M&M 2e), it supposed to played in a certain way (ie, it's up to the player to provide balance, the mechanics don't necessarily enforce it).

 

[hong]

A skill that's pegged to a relatively predictable schedule of threats, implicitly player-initiated, for the most part (the classic 'one more room' syndrome). That's my biggest beef with relying on resource management to provide a significant amount of the challenge. It tends to fall apart the more unpredictable things happen, when the campaign takes place in a more dynamic environment where trouble frequently kicks down the PC's door, Chandler-style. In which case minor ablative encounters are rendered meaningless, unforeseeable encounters leave the PC's unable to take meaningful actions, etc.

You know, this is absolutely right. Many of the more memorable encounters I've had/run have been completely outside the context of the 4 encounters/day dungeoneering paradigm. The PCs are walking down the street, when ninjae attack! Or the group is at a ball, which degenerates into a melee (with much swinging off chandeliers). That sort of thing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not necessarily. You're leaving out 'defeat', which in no way needs to imply death, and the failure to achieve desired goals/objectives.

That's a good point. Many D&D combats seem to focus on killing the monster/NPC or die trying.

So far, the distinction has mostly been between time-critical and time-neutral encounters.

But there are more types of encounters or adventures:
Think of a hostage situation. It will take some time until the kidnappers will actually do something bad to the hostage. So, the clock is ticking, but on the "per encounter scale".
But once you are in the encounter where you meet the kidnappers with the victim, now the time is on the combat scale - It is really bad in such a scenario if this encounter is your typical big-boss" monster encounter, because this will mean that some of the villains will survive long enough to have a reasonable chance of killing the hostage.
For have it work, the hostage guards must be "mooks" - it is now not a question if the characters will kill them at all, but it is a question if they can do it in time before any kidnapper gets to slit the throat of the poor hostage.

This scenario is exciting and difficult without ever entering a long-term resource management, nor requiring a life or death scenario for the characters.


Addendum:
In D&D 3, the lower level / mook encounters serve as attrition. But does that mean that the individual encounter becomes more exciting because you lost some hit points and spells? Or does it just mean that the last encounter becomes more interesting, because you might or might not have enough or the right ones left then?

If that is the case, is the fourth encounter worth the first "lame" three ones?
Or wouldn't it be more fun if I had just some "fool around encounters" where players get to figure out their new cool abilities (warming up a bit), and then run into the meaty encounters that are all thrilling because you have to use your wits and all the (encounter-renewable) resources available to you?

How important is it that the resources that I have at my disposal during any specific encounter is based on my daily resource management (as opposed to the choices I made on character advancement, maybe).

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's a good point. Many D&D combats seem to focus on killing the monster/NPC or die trying.

So far, the distinction has mostly been between time-critical and time-neutral encounters.

But there are more types of encounters or adventures:
Think of a hostage situation.

Excepting, of course, that a system designed to handle the potentially lethal combats can also include mook combats (consider using CR 1 mooks against Lvl 8 PCs) whereas a system designed for mook combats can damage lethal combats (as demonstrated by Celebrim and Gizmo33).


RC