Why is it so important?

[gizmo33]

I like to call those pointers 'the rules'.

Did you go to the Hong school of riddling and obfuscation? What are you talking about? Clearly some of the people here feel that DnD doesn't support the magic system found in novels, so how can it be "the rules"? Are you supporting them, contradicting them, or saying something else entirely?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

That would be fine. Now you've agreed that D&D's resource system does not serve to really represent fantasy fiction well. We're getting closer to being on the same page

Which is, in turn, caused by the pretty well-known, and overall agreed-upon (by most people here, at least) fact that D&D doesn't represent the bulk of fantasy fiction anyway, and isn't meant to either. That's nothing new, and to be honest, bringing up this whole "D&D magic is nothing like fantasy literature magic" is a bit of a strawman (gah, the first time I used that word on a message board, I'm spending too much time here ), since the general "fantasy literature magic" doesn't exist as a single system either. Every fantasy story has its own set of rules for magic that fits the setting and story the author wants to tell with it. D&D never tried to simulate even one of them to detail, not even Vance's, it simply took most of its inspiration from Vance. 1E didn't, 2E didn't, 3E and 3.5E didn't, and 4E won't most assuredly either.

D&D magic is just that...a magic system for a fairly high-fantasy roleplaying game. And what that is is, or was, in the hands of the respective designers. And the whole thing can easily be understood if you look at all the attempts to model some fantasy literature with D&D in the past and present. In the better attempts, the magic system is ALWAYS changed, if only slightly, to better fit the books they try to adapt. For the D&D-derived campaign worlds, it usually was used "as is" with only superficial alterations, if any. D20 is the most recent incarnation, and what several companies did with the magic system in their D20/OGL systems bears witness to the fact that the baseline never was meant as the be-all and end-all for everything, but just that...a baseline.

 

[gizmo33]

I'm not, the d20 system is.

This is unsubstantiated.

They're essential to track in both True20 and Mutants & Masterminds, and they really are incredibly simple to track.

Perhaps, but "incredibly simple", "extremely ludicrous", "perfectly reasonable" - everything with you internet folks is always some bizarre exaggeration. This is getting to be a waste of my time. Applying fatigue effects in DnD (like the 3E versions) has always been a bit of a record keeping hassle IME.

However, wizards also don't suffer hit point damage for casting spells, and only the barbarian suffers fatigue from using a special ability (rage), so it still doesn't adequately address "resting because you're tired" vs. "resting because we're out of resources".

No, the clear game mechanics reason that people rest are to "recover resources", and not always spells. I don't exactly know the nature of the mental fatigue that causes a spell to be wiped from the caster's mind in DnD, or even if it is fatigue. But so far no one is filling in those details anyway, I suspect because they don't exist. Part of my "differences aren't significant" statement is trying to convey that I think you guys are making much of the large amount of possible interpretation that can apply to each DnD mechanic - the game was never about hit locations, fatigues vs. wounds, and the myriad of other details. This means that there is a range of possible interpretations for the mechanics. These subtleties are hard to discuss in the super aggressive and hyperbolic environment of this thread.

Sure. Go for it! My only problem is that I haven't had time to read a new fantasy novel in months, now, and I've already got two waiting for me

Wait - I can't find an example of something and that's taken to be me conceding your point. You can't/won't find an example of something and that's an appeal for me to do more reading? The point about DnD having to be a literature simulator is not really mine to make, and given the adversarial nature of this thread it doesn't make sense to help out a lot when my contribution will not be taken in good faith.

 

[Jackelope King]

How nitpicky are you guys going to get and what exactly is the difference between what "counts" and what "doesn't"?

I was told that non-expendible resources are irrelevant to this discussion. I was also told that my point that you can measure an encounter's significance by how your resources have dwindled by the end of it as "irrelevant". I hate to be nitpicky, but my arguments were handwaved away because of just this reason.

If this thread is about you all discovering something or making some interesting point, that's cool, but if if this is some shallow attempt to just be right and continue to change the subject until you are then I don't see the point.

All I'm trying to do is to illustrate that the slippery-slope perception that "per-encounter" means "no settings between GODLIKE UNSTOPABLE and THIS ENCOUNTER WILL KILL YOU" is incorrect, and that this system allows DMs and players more flexibility than the current per-day only resource system. The main argumented presented against the per-encounter system (that it must make all encounters deadly to make them significant) has thus far failed to convince me because I've been running per-encounter games for over a year now, and I haven't seen this problem. That's all. I have experience with this sort of system, and your concerns are the ones I shared, but it isn't a problem. It may be a matter of playstyle, but my group has just as much fun in a per-encounter system like Iron Heroes or M&M as they do in a per-day game like D&D or a story-driven game like Vampire, but we've found the per-encounter system is much less limiting in terms of forcing breaks in the action.

That's all I'm trying to point out.

 

[Jackelope King]

First, please stop being so defensive, gizmo. I'm not asking you to go scrounge the library. I wasn't trying to shout "LOL you lose". I was trying to be encouraging. My appologies if I came off as otherwise: it wasn't my intent.

And as for tracking fatigue...

This is unsubstantiated.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#fatigued
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#exhausted

Perhaps, but "incredibly simple", "extremely ludicrous", "perfectly reasonable" - everything with you internet folks is always some bizarre exaggeration. This is getting to be a waste of my time. Applying fatigue effects in DnD (like the 3E versions) has always been a bit of a record keeping hassle IME.

That's fine. In my experience, it's proven to be much easier to track a small number of conditions like Injury, Fatigue, etc. than it is to track (and more specifically, prepare) a huge pool of resources.

No, the clear game mechanics reason that people rest are to "recover resources", and not always spells. I don't exactly know the nature of the mental fatigue that causes a spell to be wiped from the caster's mind in DnD, or even if it is fatigue. But so far no one is filling in those details anyway, I suspect because they don't exist. Part of my "differences aren't significant" statement is trying to convey that I think you guys are making much of the large amount of possible interpretation that can apply to each DnD mechanic - the game was never about hit locations, fatigues vs. wounds, and the myriad of other details. This means that there is a range of possible interpretations for the mechanics. These subtleties are hard to discuss in the super aggressive and hyperbolic environment of this thread.

I had no intent of being "super aggressive and hyperbolic". I will do my best to tone this down, and I appologize.

Wait - I can't find an example of something and that's taken to be me conceding your point. You can't/won't find an example of something and that's an appeal for me to do more reading? The point about DnD having to be a literature simulator is not really mine to make, and given the adversarial nature of this thread it doesn't make sense to help out a lot when my contribution will not be taken in good faith.

See above. I am not trying to insult/attack/tromp over you. I was being friendly and encouraging you to see what others have to say. I'm honestly interested in what they find because I'm always looking for good reads (even if I don't have the time to read them) and for new ways to look at the game.

 

[gizmo33]

I was told that non-expendible resources are irrelevant to this discussion. I was also told that my point that you can measure an encounter's significance by how your resources have dwindled by the end of it as "irrelevant". I hate to be nitpicky, but my arguments were handwaved away because of just this reason.

Ok, IMO that's a fair objection in it's general sense - if you don't understand why someone though your point was irrelevant to the topic you should have had them explain it. Not all points are equally relevant though - I'm not objecting to the "show me 8 hours, not 7.5 hours!" because it simply asserts irrelevance. It asserts it in a way that's not clear is itself relevant to the topic IMO (don't know how else to say it).

In the first case (measuring non-expendible resources). I would think that discussing non-expendable resources would be irrelevant because you don't need to rest (either a minute, a day, or whatever) to recover them. Someone objected earlier to my assertion that being able to swing a sword in DnD is a resource, on the same grounds.

All I'm trying to do is to illustrate that the slippery-slope perception that "per-encounter" means "no settings between GODLIKE UNSTOPABLE and THIS ENCOUNTER WILL KILL YOU" is incorrect,

I agree. Your characterization of what I've been saying here is inaccurate. If it's a characterization of others' statements, or an amalgamation of a bunch of different statements, I can't answer for that.

and that this system allows DMs and players more flexibility than the current per-day only resource system.

Yes, removing limitations inherently makes things more flexible, I don't think anyone disputes that.

The main argumented presented against the per-encounter system (that it must make all encounters deadly to make them significant) has thus far failed to convince me because I've been running per-encounter games for over a year now, and I haven't seen this problem. That's all. I have experience with this sort of system, and your concerns are the ones I shared, but it isn't a problem.

Imaro has had experience with the system and has found this to be an issue. I'd imagine that personal preferences make a difference in the ultimate outcome of any rule system. I believe it was discussed earlier, with an example being the fatality rate. If a game system creates a certain rate of fatality for PCs, DMs IME will adjust things until it brings it back to what they want. There is always an interpretation process that the DM applies to the ruleset. However, I think most of the time the DM would rather not "fight against" the system because he should do what he wants. In other cases, it's probably not much of a struggle to change things if it mirrors the way you conduct your games anyway. What I'm saying is that there are lots of reasons I can think of as to why your experiences have been what they are.

That's all I'm trying to point out.

OK. I'll reread it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Imagine that you are driving down the road. You need to know where you are. You consult your road map.

Suddenly, the guy in the back seat says, "Hey! There's a tree out there, but no tree on the map! What a crappy map!"

You say, "For the map to be representational in the way I need it to be, it doesn't have to mark every tree."

"Oh yeah?" the guy in the back retorts. "You admit that your map does not serve to really represent this area well. We're getting closer to being on the same page."

The simple answer is that the magic systems of fantasy fiction do not have to map onto the D&D magic system with 1:1 correspondence in order for one to represent the other well with respect to its use in the game system.

As has been pointed out already, no fictional universe has a system of magic that, as written, would work for the needs of a role-playing game, unless it was specifically derived from a role-playing game. Nor should a model correspond 1:1 with what it models in all respects, or it ceases to be any easier to use than the original which it seeks to simplify. A map that shows every blade of grass is too unweildy to use as a roadmap; a magic system that tracks every condition in the game world to determine results is to unweildy to use in a game.

Given the needs of the game, the D&D magic system does (IMHO) a very good job of both maintaining a fictional feel and being workable in a game system. Obviously, it is not perfect (or I'd not have houseruled it myself!) and people will have differing opinions on how well it meets each of the goals aforementioned.

That it is not an exact model, especially as one gets more exacting, is not a valid argument IMHO. Certainly no more so than saying that I cannot find a novel in which a longsword does 1d8 hit points of damage, or that I cannot find a novel in which any cleric casts precisely the same spells as in D&D. Certainly, if this is the claim levelled against the current system, the same claim will be equally valid against the per-encounter system of 4e.

And, for the record, wizards in Conan need to rest more than 20 minutes. In the one Conan novel, it is the whole night, as I recall, and an exact number of hours might have been given. In the passage that I previously quoted from The Gods of Mars, John Carter and Tars Tarkas slept fourteen hours.

RC

 

[Jackelope King]

Ok, IMO that's a fair objection in it's general sense - if you don't understand why someone though your point was irrelevant to the topic you should have had them explain it. Not all points are equally relevant though - I'm not objecting to the "show me 8 hours, not 7.5 hours!" because it simply asserts irrelevance. It asserts it in a way that's not clear is itself relevant to the topic IMO (don't know how else to say it).

In the first case (measuring non-expendible resources). I would think that discussing non-expendable resources would be irrelevant because you don't need to rest (either a minute, a day, or whatever) to recover them. Someone objected earlier to my assertion that being able to swing a sword in DnD is a resource, on the same grounds.

My appologies. I was typing hastily. I was refering to the discussion I posted about "non-personal resources", like position, clout, favor, etc. which can be gained or lost as a result of an encounter when taken in context with the rest of the game world. This was my oversight in typing that last post.

I agree. Your characterization of what I've been saying here is inaccurate. If it's a characterization of others' statements, or an amalgamation of a bunch of different statements, I can't answer for that.

You are correct. This was more in reference to RC's analysis where he concludes that an encounter that doesn't consume per-day resources is irrelevant.

Yes, removing limitations inherently makes things more flexible, I don't think anyone disputes that.

Precisely

I point this out because I feel that this increased flexibility, at the cost of losing the tactical framework of managing per-day resources, is a net improvement for the system.

Imaro has had experience with the system and has found this to be an issue. I'd imagine that personal preferences make a difference in the ultimate outcome of any rule system. I believe it was discussed earlier, with an example being the fatality rate. If a game system creates a certain rate of fatality for PCs, DMs IME will adjust things until it brings it back to what they want. There is always an interpretation process that the DM applies to the ruleset. However, I think most of the time the DM would rather not "fight against" the system because he should do what he wants. In other cases, it's probably not much of a struggle to change things if it mirrors the way you conduct your games anyway. What I'm saying is that there are lots of reasons I can think of as to why your experiences have been what they are.

It does take a little getting used to. It was odd at first when PCs were always going into fights fresh, but it only took a few sessions for me to really get my head around a per-encounter system. After that, I knew managed to get around my preconcieved notions that fights should be scaled to account for a percipitous drop in PC capabilities and just designed the encounters to make each one the best it could be.

OK. I'll reread it.

Thanks!

 

[gizmo33]

First, please stop being so defensive, gizmo. I'm not asking you to go scrounge the library. I wasn't trying to shout "LOL you lose". I was trying to be encouraging. My appologies if I came off as otherwise: it wasn't my intent.

Some of your earlier comments seem to be in support of some general ideas on this thread that I've found to be argumentative and misleading. It's entirely possible that you just didn't see the context to these earlier statements in the same way that I did and that your support of them was meant differently than I took it. I'll just focus on the stuff of substance that you're writing and make less of my interpretations. I'm sorry - it seems likely that I've misunderstood your intentions.

 

[Jackelope King]

Imagine that you are driving down the road. You need to know where you are. You consult your road map.

Suddenly, the guy in the back seat says, "Hey! There's a tree out there, but no tree on the map! What a crappy map!"

You say, "For the map to be representational in the way I need it to be, it doesn't have to mark every tree."

"Oh yeah?" the guy in the back retorts. "You admit that your map does not serve to really represent this area well. We're getting closer to being on the same page."
<snip>
RC

We are getting closer to the same page, RC. I'm not claiming that every single blade of grass need be statted or that absolute lock-step adherence to the words of any novelist are even desireable. What I am claiming is that the resource management system (magic specifically in this case), while suitable for representing the fantastic, is not necessarily the best (either in terms of modeling the genre or in terms of rules... we've both houseruled it ).

My position is just that the current system does not serve the needs of the game (mechanically and respresentatively) as well as a per-encounter system would. This was merely an illustration of it.

However, I'll do better to avoid talking in extremes.