Why is it so important?

[gizmo33]

It is correct that a per-encounter model discourages "encounters-for-the-sake-of-encounters" which do nothing but soak resources. But it is quite arguable that this is a sensible design goal (although to an extent it does push D&D away from its roots).

"Encounters for the sake of encounters" directly contradicts the latter part of the same sentence that suggests that the encounter soaks resources. That very well may be it's purpose. That being said, has anyone suggested that the "per-encounter resource' model actually increases the possible number of dimensions of interest? Any reason that an encounter is interesting in "per-encounter 4E", it's interesting in 3E. All the 4E resource situation does is eliminate operational consequences. It may do this to try to accomplish a number of things (like added staying power) but AFAICT one thing it *does not* appear to do is increase the possible reasons why an encounter would matter (the "dimensions of interest" or whatever we're calling them)

Gizmo33 and I discussed these above in a number of posts. He concluded that he does not enjoy this sort of "storyteller" game. That is fine - I get the sense that you don't either - but it has nothing to do with railroading. And it is a style of play which per-encounter abilities may better suppot.

Thematic exploration and railroading are unfortunately inter-twined in a lot of people's experiences, including my own. Talking to folks like yourself over time I've evolved what I think is a fairer assessment of the situation. People of my disposition (whatever we're called, I usually say "game oriented" vs. "story oriented") tend to look for variation in certain key areas when we don't find it, it's easy to conclude that railroading is going on. I think storyteller gamers are more inclined to focus on the variability of the events within a certain framework. (This was my conclusion from our discussion of what "open ended" meant.)

The way I'd try to explain it to someone like myself is to remind the "game oriented" player that a certain amount of railroading is necessary for the PCs to have joined together in an adventuring company to begin with. The players implicitly understand and accept this situation, and the DM uses it to establish the game in a way that everyone will have fun. I basically believe the same thing is going on with "story telling" gaming. It's just a different framework that superficially seems to intrude into the player's choice - but the players voluntarily choose to give up those choices (as they do when a game-oriented DM tells them "you meet in a tavern") in return for a more meaningful game experience. Good luck.

(And I still am skeptical that per-encounter resource management does anything to help story telling games, but story-teller gamers are in a better position to make that judgement I suppose.)

 

[Imaro]

This is true. But it doesn't show that every encounter in a per-encounter model will not be signficant, because it doesn't show that resource-consumption is that only dimension of significance.

No one said it was the only dimension of significance. What I'm saying is that, without changing the entire premise of D&D's style of play... it forces artificial construction of thematic and story resources to make encounters important in a long-term sense. For your argument here you're making the assumption that the entire nature of D&D will be changed. Another note is that it only takes one player to be unconcerned with these thematic or story driven awards(or to even be unconcerned with a fellow players) to derail this type of resource management. Bet everyone's concerned with whether their character survives or not.

It is correct that a per-encounter model discourages "encounters-for-the-sake-of-encounters" which do nothing but soak resources. But it is quite arguable that this is a sensible design goal (although to an extent it does push D&D away from its roots).


There is a style of play which has nothing to do with railroading, and has everything to do with thematic exploration. This is a style in which the players determine the thematic priorities of play, and pursue those themes through their in-play choices. Many RPG systems have mechanics to support the players in doing these (eg TRoS's Spiritual Attributes). Gizmo33 and I discussed these above in a number of posts. He concluded that he does not enjoy this sort of "storyteller" game. That is fine - I get the sense that you don't either - but it has nothing to do with railroading. And it is a style of play which per-encounter abilities may better suppot.

This is a style of play that totally redefines the basis of D&D gameplay...and if the players aren't concerned with deep roleplaying then yes it does become a railroad as you force them to care about your story. Or better yet what if a player wants to explore the "themes" of high adventure and loot grabbing...back at square one.

As far as whther I enjoy this type of game(Dogs in the Vineyard, Changeling the Lost, nMage, Seven Leagues, etc.) yes I do but only with those willing to buy into the tropes it presents. As a side note this is one of the reasons I have kept D&D as part of my game reptoire over the years, because it doesn't require one to buy into anything for basic play. There are games which are way more suited for this type of play, I look at D&D as able to accomodate it but it isn't necessary. Your whole argument seems based on making this mandatory.

 

[hong]

What I'm saying is that, without changing the entire premise of D&D's style of play... it forces artificial construction of thematic and story resources to make encounters important in a long-term sense.

Thematic and story resources are already required to make encounters important in a long-term sense. It's only in this thread that people have got the idea that ONE DAY can be defined as "long term".

This is a style of play that totally redefines the basis of D&D gameplay...and if the players aren't concerned with deep roleplaying then yes it does become a railroad as you force them to care about your story.

Thematic exploration != railroading. Hint: who defines the theme?

 

[hong]

You asserted at your post #502 that "If a battle does not use up per-day resources, nothing is lost in engaging in that battle. This means . . . [t]he only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff."

I deny this. There can be other significant impacts, namely thematic ones.

As well as buttkicking ones. Impacts can be positive, ie the opportunity to showboat against minor opposition.

In the 2nd-last module of the AOW adventure path, my 19th level swordsage met a bunch of avolakia priests holing up in individual rooms. There ain't nothing like dealing 190 points of damage with diamond nightmare blade to a hapless CR 15 monster, explodiating it in one blow.

Of course, after the 3rd such explodiation in a row, it all became a bit samey. But those first 3 explodiations were FUN.

 

[Grog]

No, that would be the case when *they're dead*. Hit points are a resource. Losing further hitpoints to a kobold scout is an example of losing further resources.

We're talking about the 3.X paradigm that a CR-appropriate encounter will consume 20-25% of the party's resources. This means that after four CR-appropriate encounters, an average party will be right around 10% resources. That's certainly not enough to survive another CR-appropriate encounter, and even a substantially weaker encounter is going to be a dicey proposition at best. Of course, you could throw an incredibly weak encounter at them that only takes 5% of their resources - but that just means that afterward, they have an even greater need to rest.

Well what if something runs through the threatened areas of 15 ogres while wearing only a loincloth? Is that a problem with the AoO rules? I'd say it's a problem with the player not making good choices.

A party that rests at 0% resources within enemy territory must cross it's fingers and hope for the best. Like they guy in the loincloth, it's not an example that I see much purpose in contemplating.

Well, you are the one arguing in favor of using wandering monsters to keep the PCs from resting. So if you didn't contemplate something like this example, IMO you probably should have.

Really? Your players must have a death wish. Mine would haul out of there if they weren't trying already. It was one thing to camp at 20% resources when you thought you might be able to deal with a scout patrol. It's another thing to be discovered by that patrol, take further hitpoints of damage, and face the possibility that a scout unknowingly was able to return to his leadership and inform them of your position. IME the party that gets ambushed and survives is going to flee the area.

I agree, as I noted when I said "They'll probably try to get to somewhere safer this time."

But the location in which the PCs rest is really irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains that, under the 3.X design paradigm, the average result is that the PCs have to rest after every four CR-appropriate encounters. The complaint is that that leads to ridiculously short adventuring days. If your solution to the complaint is to throw wandering monsters at the party when they try to rest, then nothing changes if the party can just avoid the monsters by retreating to a safe location.

I think that tactical situation is more complicated than you are recognizing. If you don't play a resource management style game, perhaps there's a chance that you don't understand all of the situations that come up in such a game. IMO you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

I understand how the resource management game works just fine. And I'm not jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Let me explain. You say that using wandering monsters to deter the PCs from resting will deal with the problem of the short adventuring "day." I'm saying that won't work, because of the way resource consumption is handled in the 3.X rules. After four CR-appropriate encounters, the average party will be at anywhere from 0-20% of their resources. At this point, under your suggestion, there are four possibilities:

1. The party continues on without resting. The next encounter wipes them out. TPK.

2. The party rests and is hit with a wandering monster patrol that they can't defeat. TPK.

3. The party rests and is hit with a wandering monster patrol that they can defeat. They do, and then they rest again, perhaps moving to a safer location. No change from the current situation, except that the party fought an extremely weak group of monsters that they otherwise wouldn't have.

4. The party rests and is not hit with a wandering monster patrol, perhaps because they moved to a safe location first. No change from the current situation.

So as we can see, using your suggested system will either result in no significant change from the current situation, or a TPK. The design of the 3.X rules basically guarantees this, barring unusual parties or unusual circumstances. Unless there is a possibility I missed - in which case, feel free to point it out to me.

 

[gizmo33]

Well, you are the one arguing in favor of using wandering monsters to keep the PCs from resting.

I didn't mean to suggest this if I did. I don't actually DM like this. I don't do anything in order to keep my players from doing anything. I run the adventure according to whatever seems logical to me (I know that's pretty general.)

For example - say the PCs are invading a fortress complex. There are probably pretty few EL=APL encounters in the fortress or else such a mission would be evaluated as being very dangerous. The way I design it, it's probably a bunch of mooks, individual encounters of below average, and then a BBEG type encounter of APL or higher. Part of my planning for the fortress is to give some thought to what happens if PCs camp in the area.

What I'm arguing for is that camping is not a situation of auto-recharge the way Wyatt seems to treat it in the blog entry.

The fact remains that, under the 3.X design paradigm, the average result is that the PCs have to rest after every four CR-appropriate encounters. The complaint is that that leads to ridiculously short adventuring days.

Well ridiculous according to who? Fight a wild boar with a sharp stick and see if you feel like running a marathon next in the same day. Granted, these are heroic types but more than four encounters a day might be the ridiculous thing.

So as we can see, using your suggested system will either result in no significant change from the current situation, or a TPK.

No significant change?! If they successfully rest then they get their hitpoints back. If they fail, then they retreat - losing more time from the mission or they die. Even retreating and losing a day would be a significant change in the parties circumstances - it would give the bad guys time to regroup and plan defenses for example.

These other outcomes are easy for me to think of because these are actually real results for the kind of game that I run. You're trying to suggest to me that this method of playing results in TPKs - you would think I would know that. In few cases is does resting result in no significant change besides healing etc., and even in those cases the fact that there has been no significant change is not something that's readily apparent to the PCs because they're in unfamiliar territory. They don't know that they weren't spotted the night before and that something nasty isn't waiting for them as a result.

Because of the day-long time frame involved, the possibilities are much more varied and plausible than the relatively short list of things that can transpire in the 60 seconds until all abilities are refreshed.

 

[hong]

For example - say the PCs are invading a fortress complex. There are probably pretty few EL=APL encounters in the fortress or else such a mission would be evaluated as being very dangerous. The way I design it, it's probably a bunch of mooks, individual encounters of below average, and then a BBEG type encounter of APL or higher. Part of my planning for the fortress is to give some thought to what happens if PCs camp in the area.

Camp in the area? How quaint.

Because of the day-long time frame involved, the possibilities are much more varied and plausible than the relatively short list of things that can transpire in the 60 seconds until all abilities are refreshed.

Only if you think of RPGs purely in resource-depletion terms. Which is just so videogamey.

 

[pemerton]

Encounters that fall below all thresholds of significance are boring. The mechanical theshold of significance is the easiest and most obvious threshold of significance for a DM to achieve. It therefore follows, to me, that DMs will raise the mechanical challenge of their encounters beyond the threshold of significance.

Moreover, since this change is hailed as solving the "9-9:15 adventuring day" problem, and since DMs who target other, non-mechanical, thresholds of significance are unlikely to have this problem in the first place (since it is derived from the mechanical threshold of significance), the DMs this is intended as a solution for are the ones least likely to continue using encounters that fall below the mechanical theshold of significance.

Your first sentence is true.

The rest of your first paragraph is probably true, given a certain assumption about the interests of D&D players and GMs.

Your second paragraph, however, ignores the point that for those GMs who do want to rely on other thresholds of signficance than the mechanical, the move from per-day to per-encounter may facilitate that, by stopping the mechanical issue getting in the way. Hong makes this point well:

Of course it will. Not in the sense that everybody will suddenly start having six dozen fights before lunch, but in the sense that they will not feel vaguely foolish for forging on after the first fight, despite the rational decision being to stop.

There are MANY reasons to have fights even if no daily resources are expended.

<snip>

Yes, you can do all this within the confines of per-day balancing. But that's putting the cart before the horse.

If the design of 4e actually succeeds in making gameplay based on these other thresholds of significance easier, then it might even change the metagame priorities of GMs and players, therefore falsifying to some extent the second half of your (that is, RC's) first paragraph above.

That this is so does not prove that per-encounter is preferable to per-day. But it does show that it can serve a rational function, of facilitating a type of play that the current rules do not. And that is a type of play in which the 9 o'clock until quarter past problem is less likely to come up.

 

[pemerton]

There can be other significant impacts, namely thematic ones.

As well as buttkicking ones. Impacts can be positive, ie the opportunity to showboat against minor opposition.

Fair enough. I think in this thread we're broadly in agreement.

 

[Stalker0]

Well ridiculous according to who?

Many stories and movies. Heroes fight battle after battle and keep going strong. You never see them rest after a few fights.