Why is it so important?

[Merlion]

Like Wish?



Like what? That would be the crux of an example about limitations.



Wishing for a million gold pieces would probably create a loud "ka-ching!" noise that others would hear. The true consequences of other wizards hearing spells cast is that you'd have to know EVERYONE ELSE in the area, what their hearing capabilities are, and what they're response is going to be. The level of complexity to render this plausible as a game element would be IMO the ultimate fantasy of a simulationist.



So they only adventure from 9:00 to 9:15 or else they'll die?



Well the specifics of that question would have to be answered for the spells to be useful as game mechanics. I'm assuming Eddison provides these details? Players IMO aren't going to accept "well you just can't do it and I don't exactly have a reason right now" like the reader of a novel would accept that.



Your examples are exactly an example of what I mean by "vague", they're not particularly useful as game mechanics. Now granted the reason for the vagueness might be the space limitations of the message board rather than Eddision's descriptions - but you didn't make it clear either way AFAICT. The details that you've provided so far do not hold up to the level of detail IMO required by an RPG. Perhaps just take one narrow ability, like teleport, and describe Eddison's complete working system for it.
.

Sigh. The magic of a novel isnt usually going to map exactly to game mechanics, no. But you seem to have diverged off into things other than what I was talking about with that anyway. You also seem to have trouble seperating conceptual from mechanical.

You said, or I thought you said, that I was basically expecting to much of a game system to depict the nature of magic in novels etc because magic in literature is always too vague. I was giving you examples of how in many novels, the way magic works is anything but vague.

In most fiction, if a mage knows how to perform a given "magical action" can do so whenever he wants, up to whatever limits are placed on using a lot of magic, wether it be physical fatigue or just a depletion of "magical energy" or whatever.

In the D&D Vancian system, however, even if a mage knows a given spell, he can only cast it as many times as he has it prepared. If I am an 18th level wizard and prepare only one Fireball spell, I can only cast Fireball once, even though once I cast the Fireball I still have a great many other powerful effects at my command.


These are the sorts of differences and the type of thing I am talking about.

Like Wish?

Slightly, but not really. Much more organic and flexible than Wish. Examples of specific things people did in the books include changing into animals, levitation, transformation/transmutation of various types, short range translocation, projecting energy, basically all the usual stuff.

Wishing for a million gold pieces would probably create a loud "ka-ching!" noise that others would hear. The true consequences of other wizards hearing spells cast is that you'd have to know EVERYONE ELSE in the area, what their hearing capabilities are, and what they're response is going to be. The level of complexity to render this plausible as a game element would be IMO the ultimate fantasy of a simulationist.

See, I was never talking about it as a specific game element. I was talking about it as an example of details given to the reader and known to those in the story about the way magic works, thus contributing to it not being "vague"

which at least raises the possibility that everything I'm saying about 4E could be true and you will still have a good time playing it.

There are other reasons for which I probably would have very mixed feelings about playing pure 4e or any pure version of D&D, mostly the contiued existence of the Cleric and overemphasis on "divine" stuff. My point is that I doubt that everything your saying is going to be true, and I dont see how you can come to that conclusion either based on what little we know. Even if what your saying about "per encounter" ends up being so, it does not mean as you seem to think, that the same philosophy will be applied to everything, or that there wont be factors to keep the style of play you prefer fully viable.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just to make sure that we are on the same page, I am assuming that you mean certain per-encounter class abilities, when you say "2. a resource depleting battle takes 1 minute to recover from" in your post.

Why "certain"? Why not "all"?

 

[gizmo33]

Because, some abilities will be per-day and non-class abilities, such as ammunition may still be used up and not recoverable within 1 minute.

(I'll use bold to emphasize things that I really thought would have addressed this issue by now). If significant abilities are "per-day" abilities, then the core problem described by Wyatt does not change and the 4E design therefore will not fix the problem that Wyatt identifies. Wyatt does not AFAICT claim that he wants to balance up the resource depletion rates of the wizard vs. the fighter. What he claims is that adventuring from 9:00-9:15 and then having to rest is unfun. Whether or not you rest as a result of ammunition, spells, hit points, it doesn't matter to Wyatt's point AFAICT.

If all we're talking about is keeping characters from "nova"-ing, and giving wizards and fighters the same endurance factor then I have far less objections.

But AFAICT many people on this thread are arguing for a fundemental overhaul of the way resources are consumed in DnD. They tell Celebrim that they'd be happy with a game that had no "operation" aspect to it. Getting to the climax of the adventure is mandatory in this gaming style. As long as there remain significant daily resources, and PCs can do a heck of a lot of fighting in a 15 minute period (that's 150 rounds! So, IMO, yes.), then the "9:00-9:15" problem becomes the "9:00-9:30" problem because now the wizards are lasting as long as the fighters, but AFAICT this doesn't address Wyatt's issue at all.

(Wyatt and other folks could (and might have) considered the possibility that the fact that a resource depleting battle can occur in the span of 60 seconds might be a big part of their problem.)

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Why "certain"? Why not "all"?

Because I typed "certain" before adding "per-encounter" and forgot to edit it out.

 

[Merlion]

Wizards are what wizards do. Very few wizards of even fantasy literature where issues like play balance and equal oppurtunity to be the focus of attention don't matter in the slightest, Wizards - and most certainly novice ones - rarely go around slinging spells continually. Rather, it is assumed that there is some sort of limitation on thier ability of some sort. The notion that to 'contribute as a wizard' I must never run out of spells to fire off is a rather strange one to me.

It certainly can. In 3rd edition, even at low levels, Wizards tend to be 'knowledge-guy', as in, 'Help! Wizard!! Please make a 'saving throw vs. ignorance' (ei knowledge check) and get the DM to tell us what is going on!!!'

Ok, let me be totally specific here.

To me, and most people I am familiar with, most of the time, contributing to combat as a wizard involves the use of magic to damage foes, incapacitate foes, kill foes, enhance allies, alter or control the battlefield etc etc and similar things. During combat, when your allies are already being attacked, making knowledge checks isnt likely to be terribly useful, and shooting off a crossbow or waving a dagger around isnt very "wizardy". This is one of the ways wizards contribute outside of, or at least immediately before combat.


To me, the occasions where a wizard...or any character really, becomes ineffective in combat should be those ocassions when from time to time the party encounters a threat that is counter to that characters abilities. A Wizard for instance is going to find their abilities, especially their offensive ones, great reduced against a creature thats highly resistant to magic for example, and a rogue has great difficulty against things like oozes and undead (maybe even a little too much so, but its still an example of the concept I mean.) As oposed to the whole running out of gas before everyone else situation.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

(I'll use bold to emphasize things that I really thought would have addressed this issue by now). If significant abilities are "per-day" abilities, then the core problem described by Wyatt does not change and the 4E design therefore will not fix the problem that Wyatt identifies. Wyatt does not AFAICT claim that he wants to balance up the resource depletion rates of the wizard vs. the fighter. What he claims is that adventuring from 9:00-9:15 and then having to rest is unfun. Whether or not you rest as a result of ammunition, spells, hit points, it doesn't matter to Wyatt's point AFAICT.

If all we're talking about is keeping characters from "nova"-ing, and giving wizards and fighters the same endurance factor then I have far less objections.

But AFAICT many people on this thread are arguing for a fundemental overhaul of the way resources are consumed in DnD. They tell Celebrim that they'd be happy with a game that had no "operation" aspect to it. Getting to the climax of the adventure is mandatory in this gaming style. As long as there remain significant daily resources, and PCs can do a heck of a lot of fighting in a 15 minute period (that's 150 rounds! So, IMO, yes.), then the "9:00-9:15" problem becomes the "9:00-9:30" problem because now the wizards are lasting as long as the fighters, but AFAICT this doesn't address Wyatt's issue at all.

(Wyatt and other folks could (and might have) considered the possibility that the fact that a resource depleting battle can occur in the span of 60 seconds might be a big part of their problem.)

Gotchya. As the thread keeps growing, I am sometimes confused as to what, exactly, is being argued (the general argument is obvious).

My stance remains that I am optimistic about the overall idea, but I hope that they don't remove all resource management.

 

[Merlion]

If a good wizard



then how can anything not be "contributing as a wizard"?

Either there is some outside criteria by which one can define "a good wizard" or there is not.

RC

(BTW, Gandalf, for example, casts few spells but often attacks with weapons...he uses Orcrist more than he uses spells in both The Hobbit and LotR.)

I was responding to Celebrim's assertions that a "good" wizard does X Y Z etc. Essentially that the "right" way to play a wizard is to sit back and watch and only cast a spell once in a while, and that want not to be forced into that somehow makes one a bad wizard player.


Gandalf isnt a wizard, and is probably the worst possible example for this situation. The limitations on Gandalf's use of his powers have nothing to do with resources. They were philosophical in nature.

 

[Grog]

If significant abilities are "per-day" abilities, then the core problem described by Wyatt does not change and the 4E design therefore will not fix the problem that Wyatt identifies.

I disagree. Even if significant (however you define the term) abilities are "per-day" abilities, the PCs won't have to rest once they're used up, so long as they also have significant abilities that are "per-encounter." They'll be able to continue on, and if the DM provides them an in-game incentive to do so (like a timed adventure), they probably will.

 

[Merlion]

a resource depleting battle takes 1 minute to recover from

1) We dont know how long per encounter abilites require to recharge

2) recovering your per encounter abilities is not totally recovering from an encounter.

But if you really believe that resource attrition and similar things are "unfun" then why in the world not apply that philosophy to the rest of the game?

Because Combat is really the only situation where these things come up anyway.

 

[gizmo33]

You also seem to have trouble seperating conceptual from mechanical.

We're talking about the mechanical aspects of magic. To the degree that conceptual issues support/clarify mechanical issues then AFAICT it's relevant to the discussion. Talking about conceptual issues that don't relate to the mechanical issues under discussion AFAICT makes no sense. Call it "trouble" if you will, but I hope you see what I mean.

You said, or I thought you said, that I was basically expecting to much of a game system to depict the nature of magic in novels etc because magic in literature is always too vague. I was giving you examples of how in many novels, the way magic works is anything but vague.

Yes "A is exactly like B. A is nothing like B". I get into these debates all of the time on the internet, and I have yet to figure out how to interject subtlety into this. The way magic works in novels is vague to a degree that IME would not be useful in an RPG. The preceeding statement falls into neither category of A being completely like B, or being completely unlike B, but if those are the only two statement patterns that I can choose from I'm afraid I just cannot make my point.

In the D&D Vancian system, however, even if a mage knows a given spell, he can only cast it as many times as he has it prepared. If I am an 18th level wizard and prepare only one Fireball spell, I can only cast Fireball once, even though once I cast the Fireball I still have a great many other powerful effects at my command.

These particulars of the Vancian system I am less adamant in defending. The Sorcerer character class *already* doesn't follow this paradigm, and yet *no mention* was made of that fact in Wyatt's statement AFAICT. *For good reason* Because this aspect of Vancian magic was not his problem. And this aspect of Vancian magic is not addressed by going to a "per-encounter" resource model. Spell points are typically a per-day resource, and you have the same potential "9:00-9:15" problem with them as you do with Vancian, even though AFAICT they address the problem you described above. A "Sorcerer" type character class design already solves your problem, why is the "per-encounter" design important in this?

Slightly, but not really. Much more organic and flexible than Wish. Examples of specific things people did in the books include changing into animals, levitation, transformation/transmutation of various types, short range translocation, projecting energy, basically all the usual stuff.

Wish duplicates any spell of 8th level or lower - including all of the powers you mention above. I so far see no difference other than the use of the word "organic", the meaning of which in this context I am not certain.

See, I was never talking about it as a specific game element. I was talking about it as an example of details given to the reader and known to those in the story about the way magic works, thus contributing to it not being "vague"

Well, let me restate, instead of vague, how about this: novel magic is unsufficiently described to serve as a complete model for a game. For this reason, you can't say that any given novel presents a workable magic system because it never puports to describe the magic system in it's entirety or in ways sufficient to be interacted with by persons other than the author who has a relatively limited agenda of telling his story. Other than as a "Tolkienesque" mental excercise, development of such a magic system would serve no purpose in telling the story.

The priorities of a game in this way are significantly different. The intention of a game is to allow players to, relatively autonomously, interact with the various aspects of the "world" in order to create a story, et. al. Few authors appear to be completist/simulationists of the type that Tolkien was (with respect to languages) and yet a typical RPG campaign design makes Tolkien's level of detail the norm rather than exception.

There are other reasons for which I probably would have very mixed feelings about playing pure 4e or any pure version of D&D, mostly the contiued existence of the Cleric and overemphasis on "divine" stuff.

In general, me too. While my wish list of stuff would probably be different from yours, I would hope for both of your sakes that 4E is more modular than 3E so that both of us can pick and choose what we want.

My point is that I doubt that everything your saying is going to be true, and I dont see how you can come to that conclusion either based on what little we know.

I've answered this numerous times - even if you don't agree that's not the same thing is that you "don't see" so I'll say it again so that you can say "I see why you're saying it but I disagree" and that is this: my extrapolations IMO are a very logical, and rather conservative assessment of what Wyatt's rather clear design goals were that were stated in the quote.

Even if what your saying about "per encounter" ends up being so, it does not mean as you seem to think, that the same philosophy will be applied to everything, or that there wont be factors to keep the style of play you prefer fully viable.

AFAICT that's like saying that the authors believe in the principle of good grammar but will only use it for Chapter 1 of the book. Assuming we understand each other I guess we'll just have to disagree on this as it is dependant on a basic understanding of human nature.