Why is it so important?

[Celebrim]

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...

I've never denied that. Per day or per encounter has no real impact on tactical richness (though it may have some impact on tactics, that's not the same thing).

Everyone is familiar with the terms tactics and strategy. Most gamers know the difference between the two. What they may not know is that there is a level of planning between tactical and strategic commonly called 'operational'. Operational level planning is principally concerned with what we'd call resource management. It's about doing things efficiently with limited resources. It's that operational level of play that is I think at risk. In prior editions of the game, and distinctively in 1st edition, a 'mook' encounter still demanded high attention to tactics and still represented a 'threat' because of its potential impact at the operational level. In efficiently handling a series of mook encounters would leave you unable to fulfill your strategic goal, because that final encounter against the bad guy which - in a straight up fight might be easy - would prove an 'encounter too far' due to either poor tactics in otherwise easy encounters you had no real chance of losing, or poor operational planning (you wasted important spells against minor obstacles).

D&D has a 30 year history of that style of play, at its still supported if you choose to play the game that way even in 3rd edition, and now suddenly everyone is saying that is a boring way to play that shouldn't be supported anymore?

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...

And I repeat, the people who seem to have no problem with this are the people who seem to think that each session should have 'one long, beautiful fight'. I have no problems with climatic, long, beautiful fights, but thats just one sort of challenge I like to throw at my players, or which, conversely, I enjoy as a player. (After all, I always try to be the DM that I would like to have if I were a player.)

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).

I'm worried that 4e is heavily weighted toward a specific genre emulation that is quite different from that I traditionally associate with D&D.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Over a decade ago I played in a 2e game in which we encountered many orc patrols while travelling through woods on the way to our objective. They were very same-y and afterwards I raised this with the DM. He said he was trying to recreate an experience he'd had in a previous game as a player, where the party was slowly whittled down through a war of attrition. Apparently it had been one of the most tense and exciting experiences he'd had in roleplaying. He was a very good DM, on the whole, so I'm guessing he had recreated things well. Problem is, I just found it boring.

So I'm thinking this challenge-by-attrition versus short term challenge issue is just a matter of taste. The James Wyatt quote really struck a chord with me. I don't want three out of four of the day's encounters to feel too easy. I want them all to feel like real challenges.

 

[hong]

Most gamers know the difference between the two. What they may not know is that there is a level of planning between tactical and strategic commonly called 'operational'. Operational level planning is principally concerned with what we'd call resource management. It's about doing things efficiently with limited resources.

Until such time that my swordsage can use diamond nightmare blade every round, per-encounter will still imply limited resources.

And I repeat, the people who seem to have no problem with this are the people who seem to think that each session should have 'one long, beautiful fight'.

... or two long, beautiful fights.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Operational level planning is principally concerned with what we'd call resource management. It's about doing things efficiently with limited resources. It's that operational level of play that is I think at risk.

Actions in combat. Per encounter abilities. Per day abilities. Money. Limited use magic items. Skill points. Feats. Other character options (which we are told will increase in 4e) such as the ranger's twf or missile path.

 

[gizmo33]

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?

Yes, what you're proposing (the hour long availability of 0 level spells and such) is something I would really like to see in the new version. My issue has to do with Wyatt's stated design goals, and your suggestion doesn't really address his concerns AFAICT. So I think it's unlikely that 4E will stop at just the changes you're suggesting if Wyatt's stated goals are a part of that system.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actions in combat. Per encounter abilities. Per day abilities. Money. Limited use magic items. Skill points. Feats. Other character options (which we are told will increase in 4e) such as the ranger's twf or missile path.

That's why the impact of this design choice depends so much on what abilities are going to be at will, per encounter, and per day. Also why I think WotC should example where their thinking is going with this one.

 

[Doug McCrae]

That's why the impact of this design choice depends so much on what abilities are going to be at will, per encounter, and per day. Also why I think WotC should example where their thinking is going with this one.

It's by far the most significant change in 4e. Which is probably why it's received so much discussion.

 

[Celebrim]

Until such time that my swordsage can use diamond nightmare blade every round, per-encounter will still imply limited resources.

Absolutely. But, what you fail to notice is that it implies limited tactical resources.

Imagine instead of an RPG, you are playing a tactical level wargame along the lines of ASL. Suppose you have a series of combat simulations. If in each combat, you only have so many grenades, rounds of ammo, or bazooka rounds, then you still have limited resources. But, if you come into each combat with the same number of grenades, rounds of ammo or bazooka rounds (which may in some cases be realistic) and even soldiers, then the game is ignoring the operational level of play (there is a helicopter which flies in and restocks the platoon after every fire fight). That can be alot of fun. Operational book keeping can be tedious, and it can (as you noted) be hard to design good balanced operational scenarios.

But sometimes its fun to say that you only have a limited store of supplies that 'the helicopter' can bring in, and once they are gone then they are gone (or perhaps that you only recieve resupply at a limited rate). This turns the series of combat simulations into whats known in wargaming as a campaign (or mini-campaign depending on the scale). The game is still just as tactically rich as before, but now you have to balance tactical decisions (throwing this grenade would be helpful right now) against operational considerations (I won't have the grenade later).

The thing is, every edition of D&D has supported tactical play just fine. But now it seems like we are hearing a group of people saying that operational play is 'badwrongfun' and should not be supported.

By your own admission you already 'hand wave' operational considerations, so the style of play you want to have is handled simply by treating existing rules as optional and ignoring certain rules. And that's fine, and you are the DM and should be able to make that call. But its much easier to take something out that you don't like than to put something back in that is missing.

 

[gizmo33]

So I'm thinking this challenge-by-attrition versus short term challenge issue is just a matter of taste. The James Wyatt quote really struck a chord with me. I don't want three out of four of the day's encounters to feel too easy. I want them all to feel like real challenges.

I agree, Wyatt's description did describe something that I found familiar, but I think this debate is really about what that is. Some of us just think it could have been bad DMing.

And I agree that just because you make a scenario about attrition doesn't make it entertaining. I don't think that anyone would argue that the element that they think should be in 4E should be there to the exclusion of everything else. I don't think anyone arguing for resource management thinks it's the only thing you need in the game.

The encounters that Wyatt describes are going to feel easy when they're taken out of the context of the adventure. Sure, when I don't really care about what's going on, losing 20 hitpoints out of 100 doesn't make a difference at all. When I know I'm facing a BBEG later on though, it takes on some significance and it's not something I'd call "too easy". Some of the anecdotes of play I've seen from the WotC folks makes it seem like they're much more focused on short-term slugfest to test out the crunchy parts of the rules. I wonder how much campaign level play they really engage in. I'd hate to think that such a range (limited) of experiences is contributing to 4E design.

People want long term familiarity with their PC. High amounts of PC death hurts that. Attrition of resources is a way of adding consequences to an encounter that isn't about life or death. Wyatt's comments makes it seem like life and death is the only thing he cares about, so an encounter without a significant risk of death is no fun. The problem, as occurs with killer DMs, is once you get hooked on "making the game entertaining by making it dangerous" is that the body count rises to the detriment of the game. Or, you start fudging dice, but that deception has a limited lifespan.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My late 2 cents: I have always run D&D with a major focus on the per day resource management aspect. It seemed integral to the flow of the game. I will continue to do so with 4E, even if it switches to 80% effectiveness tied up into at will and per encounter abilities. Nevertheless, I support this attempted change in 4E.

I have seen this same discussion on several gaming boards. It is really a discussion about pacing. I have come to the conclusion that people that understand how to do pacing using "operational" adventuring do so because of how they structure the adventure, not because of the game system they use. (I ran Fantasy Hero with "operational" pacing for years, and I guarantee that was a lot tougher than using 4E will be.) OTOH, people that do not fully understand how to use "operational" pacing (for whatever reasons, including being disinclined to pay attention to it), have a really hard time coping with built-in support for such pacing in a game system.

No player in one of my games would ever remotely consider resting at 9:00 AM without first considering what could go wrong. For one thing, they know that I'm perfectly happy to sic something on them, if that fits the story, even if that fight does take the rest of the session. (The fight will be interesting--merely a different kind of interesting than what we thought we were doing.) Moreover, they know that I have a lot more tools in my arsenal than, "Ninjas attack!". It may not be obvious that they are on a time limit, but time is always a precious resource for real people, and I try to reflect that. However, it's both a skill and a preference to set up your campaign world that way, and surely not required for some groups to have fun.

1. So, pacing is primarily a GM adventure design issue, not a game system issue. Some amount of per encounter abilities supports a common style of play, without significantly impeding the operational style of play.

2. In addition, it is easier to mechancially change a per encounter system (with house rules) to emphasize operational play than vice versa. For example, it is annoying to change 3E to per encounter, because anything simple you do tends to ramp up power level, which you will then need to cope with. House ruling some 4E per encounter abilities to be per day (or per session, or whatever pacing you want) is easier. Sure, you decreased power level, but you did so with a group that presumably wants the operational challenge--and you can always compensate for decreased power with some items, NPCs, etc., if you don't want to jazz up the abilities themselves.