Why is it so important?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I tend to think that the attrition model allows for an aggregate effect, where bad things can happen to the PCs without the DM being adversarial; whereas the "per encounter" model almost mandates adversarial DMing (within whatever limits the game describes as being "fair") in order to keep it interesting.

YMMV, and probably does.

RC

So, why is it not adversarial if the DM decides an encounter that must be met in a specific time frame and thus resource depletion is important and leading to the final encounters being more difficult, but it is adversarial if the DM just creates a difficult encounter?

In both cases, there is an equally high chance that the DM becomes adversarial and wants to "win" he game. But most DMs know that this is not what they are there for. They are there to provide an entertaining game, which will mostly mean things that players will get cool or interesting things to see and do. And a fight that is challenging is usually pretty interesting. A fight that only serves to make the next fight challenging might or might not...

 

[gizmo33]

You realize how elitist this sounds, right? Not that thats anything new here.

I should have emphasized *generally* and *interested* in what I'm saying. It's not a matter of their being a natural division, it's a consequence of people doing what interests them. I didn't think it was all that elitist to suggest that in certain areas of life people that care less about them tend to be led by those who do. Of course there are people who care alot about the game on both sides of this particular issue. But what I'm addressing is what kind of weight to give to the mass of partially interested people - IMO the greatest long-term good doesn't always correspond to the greatest numbers.

I believe this was talking more about the whole deal of Wizards basically being useful every now and then but spending the rest of their time standing around and similar issues, not status quo adventuring.

Oh, well I wouldn't mind seeing wizards evened out according to their resource depletion. You could actually have both AFAICT, wizards could choose a few powerful spells, or many less powerful ones. In any case, changing the wizard character class is a different issue from changing a basic aspect of the game.

There are a great many characters in fiction who are highly skilled and experienced, but still make decisions based on things other than rationality and/or good resource management.

Getting a tatoo saying "I hate hobbits" isn't rational but then it doesn't have a bearing on the tactical aspects of the game, which is I think is the area under consideration. Off the top of my head those characters in fiction that act in strange ways during tactically important moments (Boromir) tend to be tragic heroes. But then it's hard to say either way I guess.

Even if the "versimililtude" of the per-encounter model is less for you, it doesnt affect necessarily all the other aspects of the game. It doesnt even mean that it will "devolve into superficial encounters" anymoreso than it already has.

Sure, it means other aspects of the game will change to fit the established philosophy. That's why I don't find it an overstatement to talk about the consequences of that. It makes no sense to me that talk about a general practice and then only apply the change to one area of the game. I think it's reasonable to assume that sooner, rather than later, all aspects of the game will conform to this new set of priorities.

It might even be the oposite...remember, we still know next to nothing about how its all actually going to work.

In terms of reality, "nothing" is next to everything so I'm not sure this metaphor is verifiable. However, I find the design philosophy expressed by Wyatt's quote to be pretty substantial. As I've said before, I don't need to see the actual implementation if I can assume that they'll accomplish what they say they want to do. As at least one other person has remarked, by the time we see the design it will be pointless to debate it. Perhaps it's pointless now, but hopefully a little less so.

I am quite sure RPGs will still have plenty to offer, certainly to people in general, and even to you.

I hope. You can't make everyone happy all of the time though.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

One of the reasons that I like what little we know about this so far, at least as regards wizards, runs thus:

One of, if not the main reason I dislike Vancian magic is because it does not fit well with most depictions of how magic works. Having the practice of magic consist entirely of specific spells, that must be "prepared" and once used are gone, meaning you must "prepare" multiple copies to achieve the same effect twice etc, just doesnt work for me, conceptually.

Often in fiction, it seems to me that mage-types are capable of performing basic "magical actions" most or all of the time. Things like a very basic "magic ray" type attack, moving objects without touching them, creating light etc. Then they have their actual "spells", which often require more time and effort, may require materials and/or rituals of some kind etc, and usually have more powerful effects. They also require more specific conditions, and are often more taxing and can be done less frequently.

Now I realize that most fictional magic also has a fatigue element, either spiritual, physical or both, but you relatively rarely see that incorporated into RPGs for various reasons beyond the scope of what I am saying here. Although it does add another oddity to the Vancian system that a Wizard can run completely out of magic...but it doesnt adversly affect him in any other way.

I see this new system as being more in line with what I described above, and more like how magic is usually depicted than the Vancian system. Also it sounds as if it will solve the issue of Wizards often finding themselves unable to be very Wizardy pretty quickly, especially at low levels.

Well, if Spellcraft is crafted to be similar to Use the Force in SWSE, then that would be an example of adaptable, "at will" uses of magic (although minor) that fictional wizards seem to be able to do. Spells themselves may still be very precise (perhaps moreso with a 25-30 level breakdown) and will probably still be prepared...just on a per encounter basis (with the inherent, preparing of the same spell more than once). That is just a guess, however, based on what is known from SWSE.

 

[Merlion]

Oh, well I wouldn't mind seeing wizards evened out according to their resource depletion. You could actually have both AFAICT, wizards could choose a few powerful spells, or many less powerful ones. In any case, changing the wizard character class is a different issue from changing a basic aspect of the game.

No...it isnt. The issue under discussion here is the inclusion of some degree of per day, per encounter and at will abilities to the classes in general...and to Wizards in particular.

Getting a tatoo saying "I hate hobbits" isn't rational but then it doesn't have a bearing on the tactical aspects of the game, which is I think is the area under consideration. Off the top of my head those characters in fiction that act in strange ways during tactically important moments (Boromir) tend to be tragic heroes. But then it's hard to say either way I guess.

What difference does it make? The point is, even experienced individuals are still quite capable of making decisions based on factors other than whats most tactical sound, for reasons personal or circumstantial.

Sure, it means other aspects of the game will change to fit the established philosophy. That's why I don't find it an overstatement to talk about the consequences of that. It makes no sense to me that talk about a general practice and then only apply the change to one area of the game. I think it's reasonable to assume that sooner, rather than later, all aspects of the game will conform to this new set of priorities.

To me, the whole discussion of playstyles is mostly irrelevent. People are going to play the game how they want to play it, regardless. I am discussing primarily the nature of the proposed mechanical changes, and there effect on combat and class balance within combat.

Right now as it stands, Wizards especially and spellcasters in general tend to "run out of steam" faster and more totally than other classes, especially at low levels. This generally means that the physical combat types are still wanting to continue, while the wizard wants to stop and rest, so he can actually be able to do things (by which I mean the things he plays his class to do.) So, either everyone stops, or everyone continues and the wizard is basically relagated to the sidelines.


None of this, to me, has much affect on other aspects of the game besides combat itself, and the choice of how frequently to rest. Obviously various bleed over can occur. My point however was that you seem to feel that these changes are going to essentially eliminate all aspects of versimilitude, realism, and possibly anything other than continious combat from the game, and turn it into WoW. I am saying that your (seemingly) coming to that conclusion because of one aspect of things is overdoing it a bit.

In terms of reality, "nothing" is next to everything so I'm not sure this metaphor is verifiable. However, I find the design philosophy expressed by Wyatt's quote to be pretty substantial. As I've said before, I don't need to see the actual implementation if I can assume that they'll accomplish what they say they want to do. As at least one other person has remarked, by the time we see the design it will be pointless to debate it. Perhaps it's pointless now, but hopefully a little less so.

Again, your missing my point. My point is, all we know is that characters will have per day, per encounter, and at will abilities. The devil is in the execution. I am assuming that even if they wish to put forth a certain design philosophy, the execution of the mechanics will allow for the accomadation of more than one play style.

I hope. You can't make everyone happy all of the time though.

Yep. Which means all the designers can do is what they think best because no matter what they do, some people will hate it.

 

[Merlion]

Well, if Spellcraft is crafted to be similar to Use the Force in SWSE, then that would be an example of adaptable, "at will" uses of magic (although minor) that fictional wizards seem to be able to do. Spells themselves may still be very precise (perhaps moreso with a 25-30 level breakdown) and will probably still be prepared...just on a per encounter basis (with the inherent, preparing of the same spell more than once). That is just a guess, however, based on what is known from SWSE.

I disagree, at least that thats all their will be too it, based on what they have said so far about 4e. What has been said, I thought, is that wizards will have their Vancian spells, but then have other magical non spell abilities some of which are per encounter, some at will, and perhaps some per day as well. And these abilities, not Spellcraft, will represent what i was refering too.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I disagree, at least that thats all their will be too it, based on what they have said so far about 4e. What has been said, I thought, is that wizards will have their Vancian spells, but then have other magical non spell abilities some of which are per encounter, some at will, and perhaps some per day as well. And these abilities, not Spellcraft, will represent what i was refering too.

Ah yes, I was only referring to spells, not to the entire repertoire of Wizardly abilities. What those are remains to be seen, but I agree that there will be more. Also, with the de-emphasis on the Vancian system, my initial take on spells may be way off.

Either way, I'm excited to see how it turns out.

 

[gizmo33]

One of, if not the main reason I dislike Vancian magic is because it does not fit well with most depictions of how magic works.

If this were Wyatt's design goal then that would be fine but it's not AFAICT. The current resource model is not inextricably linked to Vancian magic. The "9:00-9:15" problem could just as easily occur within a spell point system.

Furthermore, other than in super-hero type stories the workings of magic are left relatively vague. RPGs have to stand a level of logical scrutiny that novels don't because the players can actually play around with the elements of the world - and find loop holes, problem areas, and make the world seem like an odd fit for the rules. The problems with trying to fit a novel to a game were already noted in the old days, I'll try not to restate those arguments anymore than I already have.

Just look at what happened in combat in 3E. People probably wanted a level of tactical detail that wasn't present in the "minute long melee round" of 2E and prior. Be careful what you wish for I guess is the lesson. Now it's pretty common to hear people complain about how long combat takes. Now it's pretty common to hear people complain about how long it takes to stat up characters and monsters (just look at one of the last Dungeon editorials for an example of this complaint from a professional).

Some of the problems that you seem to have with Vancian magic could be solved within a system that's still basically Vancian, or other systems that still don't use a "per-encounter" resource model. You appear to be asking for far more than what you need to solve the problems described.

 

[Celebrim]

Right now as it stands, Wizards especially and spellcasters in general tend to "run out of steam" faster and more totally than other classes, especially at low levels. This generally means that the physical combat types are still wanting to continue, while the wizard wants to stop and rest, so he can actually be able to do things (by which I mean the things he plays his class to do.) So, either everyone stops, or everyone continues and the wizard is basically relagated to the sidelines.

Not that it is important, but if the spellcaster is any good at what they do, it tends to play out in the opposite fashion. The spellcaster takes a secondary role and hoards thier resources through much of the crawl, and then something big and scary looking is encountered and the fighter goes, "Yikes! Some help here!?!?!", and then the spellcaster goes nova. And at higher levels, it tends to be, "My scrying indicates there is a big scary thing in the next room. Everybody, time to cowboy up."

The devil is in the execution.

Indeed. But so far I'm getting less and less hopeful that I'll like the meal when they insist on putting things like beets, mayonaise, duck, parsnips, and mint in it. I undestand other people like these things and have been savoring the thought of them, but even if the execution is good its not something I would have ordered for myself nor is it likely to be my favorite dish.

It's like an episode of 'Iron Designer' where the main ingredient is one I'm not particularly fond of. Even if the results are impressive, so what? You want me to eat that?

 

[Merlion]

Not that it is important, but if the spellcaster is any good at what they do,

This is pretty much a relative concept. And even within a single defintion of "being any good at what they do", multiple ways of achieving it will be possible.

The spellcaster takes a secondary role and hoards thier resources through much of the crawl, and then something big and scary looking is encountered and the fighter goes, "Yikes! Some help here!?!?!", and then the spellcaster goes nova

But what if the player of the wizard actually wants to contribute most of the time, rather than every once in a while?

It's like an episode of 'Iron Designer' where the main ingredient is one I'm not particularly fond of. Even if the results are impressive, so what? You want me to eat that?

And now your missing my point. My point, to gizmo, was that he is assuming that a certain set of things are going to happen based on the scraps of information we have about this whole "per encounter" business. But, once we see the finished product, we may see that there are aspects of it, or of other things, that mostly deal with the worries presented.

 

[med stud]

And, as I said, that was the best point (IMHO) raised in that regard so far.

However, I would say that chess is tactically interesting only because both sides are trying to win. Playing chess against someone who has no chance of beating you is boring; playing chess against someone who you have no chance of beating is equally boring (though perhaps more instructional). In order to be interesting, each chess game must be an all-or-nothing affair where the outcome cannot be predicted in advance.

This jibes, IMHO, exactly with the problem Celebrim and Gizmo33 are describing with the "per encounter" model.

Here I don't agree. I play (maybe too) much civ 4; the challenge for me is not to beat the AI, I can do that at all difficulty levels. The challenge is about how I beat the computer, to try to find out interesting ways to win or just to feel the (a bit pathethic ) rush of power as my tanks steamroll some backward nation. There doesn't have to be an element of all or nothing in tactics for it to be interesting.

EDIT: Also, it should be noted that if the game has "per encounter" tactics (as all rpgs must) and also has operational tactics, perforce it must have more tactics than a game that just has "per encounter" tactics, unless there is a significant difference in the level of the "per encounter" tactics between the two games.

Using the chess example, if you played a series of three games of chess, and each pawn that you lost in the first two games was not replenished, but you needed to win the game to move on, the loss of pawns in those games would be more serious, and would perforce require more tactical considerations than three unrelated games of chess in a row.

In that example it wouldn't mean more tactics, just different tactics. Presently, it is a tactical decision if you will use one of your fireballs in a given combat or not; if you can use fireballs/ encounter, the decision will instead be when you will use your fireball or fireballs in the combat. Different outset but it still takes use of tactics. The alternative to the current way of doing things is not some mindless blasting (or I really hope so).

Even in the case of Yahoo! Games, where winning at chess affects your ranking (so that ranking becomes a sort of metagame for some), it is easy to witness how the operational level affects tactics at the "per encounter" level -- some people abandon boards to attempt to force the other player to quit (thus winning), some people refuse to play against anyone who has a chance of winning, etc. These are not generally things that happen when there are only "per encounter" rules in place.

The purpose of ranking (so that you can find someone close to your level in play) instead became a metagame reward system that effectively subverts the original purpose. It is my fear that 4e, like 3e, will have these same sorts of problems.
RC

I don't understand how D&D in any edition could get that kind of problem, especially not because of the rules system. Those people do it to max their level (like they did in Starcraft when I was active (and probably still do)). The closest analogy I could come to in D&D to the situation you describe is if PCs would avoid encounters where their resources would be expended. I suppose that's not what you meant?