Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

I see. So a significant ability is a per-day ability, and therefore a per-day system is required for there to be significant abilities replenished? Tautology, anyone?

You miss the point (at least as I understand it). The problem with the 9-9:15 adventuring day is that adventurers rest as soon as they use their significant resources. A significant resource, therefore, is any resource that is not always available. Anything that can be done at will, or per encounter, is still available, and hence insignificant when determining when you ought to pack your bags and go home. Like the fighter's ability to swing a sword, it doesn't have to be taken into account.

Moreover, the more things "reset" after each encounter, the more encounters have to be ramped up in order the challenge the "reset" party. Only those resources that are expended and not reset actually impact the party in any real way, so only those resources are significant. Just as dozens of people now skip the 10 goblins attacking the 10th level fighter because it has no effect on the outcome of the adventure, dozens of people will skip any fight that only uses "reset" resources.

And, yes, that does impossible to argue away rationally.

In my own houserules, I use the VP/WP varient. VP reset at a rate of LVL + Con bonus/minute, with full reset after 10 minute's rest. Hence, the only damage that "matters" is WP damage. In that varient, of course, the chance of taking significant damage is always present, and if the chance of losing significant resources is always present, that is a good thing. The full reset time is there to make a decision point -- do we rest and risk another encounter (i.e., wandering monster) or press on?

In any event, Gizmo33 hasn't missed your point that "a party of PCs under average expectations will forge onward until a significant portion of its resources is expended." He is, rather, saying that your definition of a "significant portion" is incorrect because it relies on the idea of insignificant resources being considered significant.

RC

 

[Henry]

Dough, I figured your post was a good one to highlight some of my thoughts on the issue:

Much the same is possible in 3e, but occurring over days rather than hours. In fact beginning the game at 1st level and hitting 20th after six months is a noted problem.

I think a lot of people's concerns are changing that to "1st to 20th after one afternoon", which hopefully will be avoided by more than just downtime. As it is now, the downtime is forced by the recharge time, and added to it by the DM and players as they see fit. If a group maintains 80% of their resources (a quote I remember in one of the blogs, I think) then there's nothing to stop them from clearing Undermountain not in a month, but in a day, in theory. Just WHAT those "per day" resources still are, and if Hit points and healing are two of them, is the important part.

Also your example assumes teleport is a 'per encounter' ability which seems highly unlikely.

At this point, no one put the testers and designers know for sure. I'm hoping it's closer to that "per encounter" system in Unearthed Arcana, because then you at least have things like teleport, plane shift, and miracle as "per day" still. (Or to be precise, per 24 hours.)

In superhero games, which often have 'at will' abilities I've only seen the above happen once, a campaign where there was no downtime. It was a GM mistake, which the players eventually complained about.

I think that the changes are, once again, more about insulating game play from bad DMs, since there seem to be more bad and mediocre DMs in this world than good DMs, according to this forum and WotC's. I can sympathize, but I also think there's only so much insulating one can do; ultimately, you can make a system unusable by trying to protect it too much.

One good thing - the "per encounter" setup (as described in previous products) is designed in such a way that the recharge mechanism can be altered by a group to suit their needs. If one extended that "per minute" to "per 10 minutes" for example, or "per hour", then time-critical adventures stay viable, resources can run out on someone if they spend them too quickly, and you still preserve the ability to have 3 or 5 or even 10 significant encounters in a day.

 

[med stud]

And interesting that it be the case, given the issue raised lately by World of Warcraft One of the consistent things that I see from people defending the existence of table-top RPGs is that they hands-down do a better job of capturing a feeling of reality in the game world. Why? Because stuff happens and the DM actually remembers that it happens and adjusts the world accordingly, whereas the computer's ability to adapt is significantly limited.

So here, presumably, 4E is trying to develop something compelling and it's playing right into the hands of WoW. Encouraging DMs to develop a response to the "9-9:15" problem that requires versimilitude appears to be taking a back seat to the instant gratification slug-a-thon that is my experience with most computer adventure games. I'm not saying that people's 4E games will become human moderated computer games - I'm saying that the noose continues to tighten, so to speak, as the amount of game world elements that the players have to interact with is reduced. I remember Neverwinter Nights being like this and it just didn't feel like DnD.

How a game will be paced doesn't have anything to do with Vancian magic or abilities per encounter; just because you can keep fighting indefenitly (as a magic user) doesn't mean that you have to do it or that DMs will be hypnotized into bringing constant fights against the PCs. 9:00-10:15 problem could be reproduced in 3.5 but over a week or month instead if you felt like it. Systems aren't hard to break if you really are trying.

This seems to be more of an issue with what style you are used to and what you prefer. Some people welcome these changes because they didn't like the old way, others hate it (understandeably) because official support for their prefered way of playing is going away.

I don't get the complains against what you call "instant gratification- etc". With the proposed system as it looks it means that you can access more tactical options per combat without thinking ahead as much as earlier. That doesn't mean that you can stop thinking and mindlessly bash away, it means that the strategic dimensions of the game changes and as long as the DM can keep up with it it doesn't have to be easier or harder, just different.

I'm saying that the noose continues to tighten, so to speak, as the amount of game world elements that the players have to interact with is reduced. I remember Neverwinter Nights being like this and it just didn't feel like DnD.

I don't understand what this has to do with the rules. Unless I missed something it is up the DM and players how much interaction that is necessary with game world elements.

 

[Rakin]

9:00-9:15: PCs fight the Armageddon of all battles
9:16: PCs rest up and are fully charged
9:17-9:25: PCs fight another Armageddon battle
9:26: PCs realize all monsters within a mile radius have been killed. Push loot into portable hole.
9:27: PCs teleport to next dungeon. Rest in order to recover teleport spell.
9:28-9:30: PCs fight another Armageddon battle
9:31: PCs level up
9:32: PCs teleport to King's castle, ask for new quest
9:33: PCs adventure through next dungeon
9:34-10:00: PCs fight a handful more Battles to End all Battles. Level up a few more times.
10:01: PCs teleport back to King. Usurp throne.
10:05: PCs heal after fighting King's army
10:06: PCs retire.

Sounds like WoW on crack.

 

[Rel]

Dough,

Henry I'd like to ask you not to call other members of the boards fat. Thank you.

 

[Imaro]

So what happens here? That hitpoints (and by extension healing magic) become the only significant resource, or do even they respawn with a moment's rest? If the party never feels the need to retreat, then basically all possible 4E outcomes boil down to victory or death?

In Saga terms, the Jedi can certainly attack with his lightsaber every round and can continue to do so as long as he has Hit Points. However, using a properly timed and placed Force Slam to beat up a horde of battle droids / clone troopers / stormtroopers is fun. And being able to do that once or twice in each combat is fun. Being able to do that once a day is less fun (because it's less likely you'll use it or more likely that once you use it it'll be time to take a sizeable break).

I wanted to comment on these two posts. I bought Star Wars SE and have found a problem, at least IMHO, with the whole replenishing encounters, and it is exactly what gizmo33 states above. With very little resources to waste, the "mook" encounters serve no purpose but scenery with the most risk coming from random occurences like max damage rolled or a critical hit on the players...otherwise these encounters really require very little tactical thought or strategy to beat. In essence my players(mostly jedi and one soldier) threw hella force powers at the "mooks" and obliterated them as long as they're initiative was high enough. They didn't have to worry at all about resource management since, as long as they lived, they'd be a-ok(all their power refreshed in the next encounter).

While the "Big Bad" encounters require tactics and strategy, it really becomes an all or nothing type thing with the encounters. If you waste your resources without thought on the BB encounter, then you'll probably die. It's a little jarring actually, since the two modes of play don't mesh or complement(in the case of teaching actual strategy with less dangerous encounters) very well.

This is something that kind of turned me off Star Wars(though there is still enough in the realm of streamlining that I would play it again). I found the "mook" encounters a total bore as GM, and after enough play I think my players began to look at them as little more than an anoyance to get to the BB. I guess this is great for Star Wars, ut I worry about it in D&D.

 

[gizmo33]

Just as dozens of people now skip the 10 goblins attacking the 10th level fighter because it has no effect on the outcome of the adventure, dozens of people will skip any fight that only uses "reset" resources.

I think you get my point exactly. I'll add: Take a BBEG's fortress guarded with goblin patrols. In a 4E-type paradigm where everything is an encounter level resource, the fighter simply resets after each goblin encounter, and the effect that the goblins have had on his ability to combat the BBEG is nothing more than wasting a few minutes of his time.

Now vanilla 3E already has created some of this because the power curve is such that large groups of lower level opponents are much less significant than they were in earlier editions (thanks Great Cleave!) Combine that with the complexity of managing more than a few opponents and it creates a situation where DnD is (or was) increasingly about fighting against a boss-type monster. This is a super-hero style game that doesn't suit my personal style, and the encounter-level situation could make it worse depending on which resources they assign to what level (I'm increasingly thinking that healing magic is going to be the make-or-break point for me)

 

[hong]

I think a lot of people's concerns are changing that to "1st to 20th after one afternoon", which hopefully will be avoided by more than just downtime. As it is now, the downtime is forced by the recharge time, and added to it by the DM and players as they see fit. If a group maintains 80% of their resources (a quote I remember in one of the blogs, I think) then there's nothing to stop them from clearing Undermountain not in a month, but in a day, in theory. Just WHAT those "per day" resources still are, and if Hit points and healing are two of them, is the important part.

Undermountain and similar huge megadungeons are contrived places to begin with. If the group wants to tackle such a dungeon and arrive at a contrived conclusion, I see no problem in letting them do that. Heck, people have been doing it already for years: NWN's Hordes of the Underdark expansion can see you going from 18th to 30th level in about 20 hours real-time, which translates to 100 hours game time IIRC.

Conversely, if people DON'T want to get to 20th level in a week, then it's well within the DM's rights to say "you finish this adventure at 5th level. Six months later...". Just like right now, if people don't want to get to 20th level in a month.

One good thing - the "per encounter" setup (as described in previous products) is designed in such a way that the recharge mechanism can be altered by a group to suit their needs. If one extended that "per minute" to "per 10 minutes" for example, or "per hour", then time-critical adventures stay viable,

I've already refuted this objection. Whyfor you keep parroting it, Henry?

Ah, I have it. You're thinking of "time critical" as meaning the PCs have hours in which to finish a task. They start at 9 am, and have to get out by 5 pm. A time-critical adventure with a heavy emphasis on per-encounter abilities will be more likely to be counted in MINUTES, where every round counts. You can spend time hunting down the last few orcs who ran away, or you can get on with the mission. Which is as it should be. In a time-critical adventure, the critical resource should be... time.

(And no, it doesn't have to be hard to keep track of time. It can be as simple as keeping track of the total rounds spent in combat, and if it goes above a certain number, the party loses. It's an abstract solution, but if handled well, the players never have to notice.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's a little jarring actually, since the two modes of play don't mesh or complement(in the case of teaching actual strategy with less dangerous encounters) very well.

This is, IMHO, the 3.X problem all over again.

3.X is a great system, if you play it in the same way that you would play 1e or 2e. However, 3.X doesn't reward that sort of play mechanically. Instead, it rewards play with a 15 minute adventuring day, lots of buffs, and all sorts of assorted problems that have sprang up specifically (IMHO) because the designers didn't understand what sort of play they were rewarding when the rules were being written.

It takes some time to realize that a new edition rewards different sorts of play, so it "shines" at first in initial playtest, and then the problems appear a year or more down the road, when the players have learned what the "winning" strategies are.

It is my opinion that a game designer should first ask "What are players intended to do?" and then "What incentives can I give them to do that?" before asking "What is fun?" Simply put, it is easier to make a game with clear goals, and incentives to follow those goals, fun than it is to make players do your "fun" stuff if they are rewarded for doing something else entirely.

Again, this is IMHO, and YMMV.

RC

 

[hong]

I wanted to comment on these two posts. I bought Star Wars SE and have found a problem, at least IMHO, with the whole replenishing encounters, and it is exactly what gizmo33 states above. With very little resources to waste, the "mook" encounters serve no purpose but scenery with the most risk coming from random occurences like max damage rolled or a critical hit on the players...otherwise these encounters really require very little tactical thought or strategy to beat. In essence my players(mostly jedi and one soldier) threw hella force powers at the "mooks" and obliterated them as long as they're initiative was high enough. They didn't have to worry at all about resource management since, as long as they lived, they'd be a-ok(all their power refreshed in the next encounter).

While the "Big Bad" encounters require tactics and strategy, it really becomes an all or nothing type thing with the encounters. If you waste your resources without thought on the BB encounter, then you'll probably die. It's a little jarring actually, since the two modes of play don't mesh or complement(in the case of teaching actual strategy with less dangerous encounters) very well.

This is something that kind of turned me off Star Wars(though there is still enough in the realm of streamlining that I would play it again). I found the "mook" encounters a total bore as GM, and after enough play I think my players began to look at them as little more than an anoyance to get to the BB. I guess this is great for Star Wars, ut I worry about it in D&D.

I think that serves to underline that each fight should be interesting in its own right, rather than just being "mook" or "BBEG". Maybe the mooks have something the PCs need; maybe they're guarding a chokepoint that has to be crossed; maybe they're sniping at the PCs from across a ravine, so the PCs can't just charge them; etc. Basically, each fight should have its own purpose for being; it should never be just to deplete resources.