Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

Would you claim that one of the problems you have with a hypothetical per-encounter system would be the loss of an attrition-based, per-day resource management system, which serves to affect the choices players make in light of the resources their characters have/have lost?

Yes.

 

[Imaro]

To:Jackelope & Hong...

The problem with assuming that the 9-9:15 problem will be solved by per-encounter is this...

If...

A.) If, as has been suggested, I am able to throw more "significant" encounters in terms of in-combat resource expenditure(thus life/death) type of encounters then the average of PC's being killed or even a TPK rises significantly with each encounter(law of averges). The PC's will always be at more risk than a single monster encounter for dying, having more "significant" encounters, as defined above, raises this exponentially. And in fact can end up putting a longer halt on gameplay than a days' rest(no ressurection at lower levels).

B.) If I am throwing "insignificant" encounters at them, well first I can do the same in 3e by having monsters with way lower CR's than the characters. But then this leads to(as has been defined by Hong) numerous boring encounters. So what exactly has been accomplished by per-encounter abilities to solve the 9-9:15 problem? It seems like a smokescreen that confuses the issue but results in nothing.

C.) In a per-day abilities scenario I can make every encounter significant in the fact that it will affect later competency without making it life/death. I cannot accomplish this with a per-encounter abilities model and thus another problem arises, one of granularity. In the per-encounter model there is no granularity in my encounter design, it is either a live/die encounter where I have built it so that they're in-combat resources are all expected to be used or an insignificant encounter where only per-encounter and at-will abilities should be used.

Another problem that arises in the mixed abilities scenario is that with per-day abilities and encounters that use a certain percentage of resources I am better equiped to know what my player's should be capable of facing within a cetain range of error. If I have a 7 encounter dungeon and have 4 encounters that take 10% of their resources, 2 more that take 15% of their resources and then 1 more at 20%, it doesn't matter what order I put them in as they equal out to 90%(10% cushion just in case) of the character's resources being expended. In the mixed abilities scenario my player's could easily think an encounter is the main one, blow their per-day abilities and face almost certain death in the next significant encounter.

 

[Jackelope King]

That is a seperate question than the affect of the per-encounter system on the 9-9:15 adventuring day

My appologies, then. I was not aware that the 9-9:15 adventuring day was the focus of the thread. My understanding of the thread was based on what the OP wrote:

I am curious as to why people like the idea of having "per encounter" abilities and such.

I personally like the challenge of selecting the best spells, and the challenge of not biting off more than we can chew, and having to back up and rest. Plus knowing when you should back up and rest.

So why do people think its better to get rid of that? Why is it better to make these issues go away? Why take away that depth of challenge?

I'm fine with changing the requirements for how long of a rest is required, I am fine with changing the requirements for memorizing and praying for spells. However I don't get why getting rid of such requirements almost completely adds to the game?

and I was responding to the discussion about the whole of the system in light of this and other initial thoughts about the topic, and not the narrower focus on the 9-9:15 adventuring day. You have my appologies.

EDIT: And thank you for responding to my question. If you like, to avoid dragging this thread's de facto topic off-course, we could move this to a side topic.

 

[Imaro]

It's not petty at all. In fact, he made the same correction I did.

Even in 3rd edition, the classes are a mix of At Will and Per Day abilities, with a varying mix of the two. With that known, what is more likely? That 4th ed classes will all share the EXACT same mix of per day, per encounter, and at will abilities (Thus, everyone being at 80% when they use all their per day abilities), or that a use of all their per day abilities will leave them at different levels of resource depletion?

Uhm...I would say them all being at 80%, for balance reasons would make more sense. Now I could see that balanced percentage being achieved in different ways through different abilities but what I don't see is all of us expending our per-day abilities and suddenly the wizard is at 80%...the fighter at 20%...the rogue at 100% and the cleric at 10% efficiency.

 

[hong]

To:Jackelope & Hong...

The problem with assuming that the 9-9:15 problem will be solved by per-encounter is this...

If...

A.) If, as has been suggested, I am able to throw more "significant" encounters in terms of in-combat resource expenditure(thus life/death) type of encounters then the average of PC's being killed or even a TPK rises significantly with each encounter(law of averges). The PC's will always be at more risk than a single monster encounter for dying, having more "significant" encounters, as defined above, raises this exponentially. And in fact can end up putting a longer halt on gameplay than a days' rest(no ressurection at lower levels).

This can be addressed by other methods, which all basically come down to controlling the variability of outcomes within the encounter. Eg, if there are fewer instakill spells, then you no longer have to worry about a natural 1 killing someone regardless of how healthy they are. Or you can have a fate point/hero point system to do the same thing.

C.) In a per-day abilities scenario I can make every encounter significant in the fact that it will affect later competency without making it life/death.

Regardless, the whole idea of per-day resources is that, once per day, you will still have at least one life-or-death encounter. Now that encounter may be risky only because you hit it when you're depleted, but that doesn't change the fact that it's risky.

 

[Raven Crowking]

some parties choose to inflict the 9-915 thing on themselves, because they insist on having 100% resources at all times. They dont see it as a problem, and will play this way regardless of the system.

Agreed.

For the ones that consider it a problem, its a problem for them because they dont necessarily feel the need to be at 100% at all times, but are forced to rest far more frequently because of the disparity between classes. The fact that the casters, and especially wizards, loose their % effectivness faster and more totally than other classes.

Disagree, although I see where you are coming from.

We've already discussed the wizard's effectiveness without spells, and AFAICT there is no mechanical difference between a crossbow and a "wizard power" that acts exactly like a crossbow.

The party doesn't rest because the wizard player has nothing to do, AFAICT, but because what the wizard can do is significant to the party as a whole.

So, while I agree that there is a disparity between class resources, both in terms of how good they are and how often they can be used, I disagree that this has nothing to do with management of significant resources (the party being at X% before resting).

I am also, I admit, skeptical of the claim that party resources can be balanced both in terms of how good they are and how often they can get used, while still maintaining the flavour and party roles that makes having more than one class mean having more than one type of experience in the game.

RC

 

[Imaro]

This can be addressed by other methods, which all basically come down to controlling the variability of outcomes within the encounter. Eg, if there are fewer instakill spells, then you no longer have to worry about a natural 1 killing someone regardless of how healthy they are. Or you can have a fate point/hero point system to do the same thing.

So...now you're making it into one of those boring fights you talked about earlier through metagame means? I feel like you are moving your logic and reasoning back and forth.

Regardless, the whole idea of per-day resources is that, once per day, you will still have at least one life-or-death encounter. Now that encounter may be risky only because you hit it when you're depleted, but that doesn't change the fact that it's risky.

No, when you plan the encounter...before play begins to make it "risky" would be to set it at a level where the use of per-day abilities would be a strong or even neccessary factor in achieving victory. Thus if the per-day abilities are expended before reaching that encounter then it is now a deadly encounter. Without a clear identifier(metagame or in-game to determine which is the "significant" encounter...you know like in star wars sith lord=significant encounter, stormtrooper=/=significant encounter) it's randomness, and randomness never favors the PC's.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My appologies, then. I was not aware that the 9-9:15 adventuring day was the focus of the thread. My understanding of the thread was based on what the OP wrote:

I may be conflating threads, or I may be more concerned about the "side discussion" opened up by Gizmo33. It may be that we are talking at cross-purposes.

EDIT: And thank you for responding to my question. If you like, to avoid dragging this thread's de facto topic off-course, we could move this to a side topic.

Sure.


RC

 

[Mallus]

Yes.

Jog my memory a bit --this thread has gotten big-- are you saying that you think the loss, or at least deemphasis, of 'operational level resource management', as Celebrim called it, is a bad design choice for the, or simply bad with regard to your prefered style of play?

Because if it's the former, what do make of the success of systems that remove or limit resource management, like Mutants and Masterminds?

It's its the latter, well, yeah, it looks like some of the 4E changes are going to have a negative impact on a strategic aspect of play you enjoy. So time to make with the new house rules...

 

[gizmo33]

For extra credit, I'll also say that DMs who say they don't design encounters in a per-day setup to be life-or-death because a full-strength party would easily win, in the knowledge that the party will _not_ be at full strength when they fight that actual battle, are deluding themselves.

But I do use life-or-death encounters in a daily resource game, Jakelope already asked about this. Otherwise I don't follow what you're saying (which is the less argumentative version of "what you're saying makes no sense"). I don't know what you mean by "in the knowledge".