Why is it so important?

[Merlion]

No. At-will resources are fundamentally different from per-encounter resources (unless your encounters always last only one round). With an at-will resource, the only thing you have to decide is whether it's better to use that resource or do something else in any given round. With a resource that's usable once per encounter, not only do you have to decide whether it's better to use it or do something else, but you also have to decide if that particular round is the best time to use it, or if it might be better to wait. That's a different calculus.


No, they're still per-day resources, it's just that the players and the DM have decided to have only one encounter per day. From a design point of view, in 3E, these abilities weren't supposed to be used in every encounter. 3E wizards, for example, aren't balanced against the assumption that they'll be able to cast all their most powerful spells in every encounter.


But the important time frame is not after the battle, it's during the battle. If you're in the middle of a difficult fight, choosing when and how to use your encounter-level resources is critically important. You want to get the most bang for your buck, so to speak. And as someone else pointed out, per-encounter resources are still limited (which is what makes them fundamentally different from "at-will" abilities). For example, if you have a 1/encounter fireball, is it better to use it right at the beginning of the fight, or wait and hope your friends can maneuver the enemies closer together?


The designers have said that 4E is going to feature more monsters per encounter. I agree, if you come across two kobolds in the middle of an open field, you would just fire off your 1/encounter fireball and move on. But if you're facing a couple dozen kobolds, swarming in from several different directions, with the possibility of more behind them - well, then the choice to use your 1/encounter fireball isn't quite such a no-brainer, is it? There are still plenty of interesting and relevant choices players can make with per-encounter abilities - it's not just the "ho-hum, I'll use everything and then recharge" situation you're making it out to be.

This is much of what I have been getting at put a bit more precisely.

 

[FireLance]

Wizards are what wizards do. Very few wizards of even fantasy literature where issues like play balance and equal oppurtunity to be the focus of attention don't matter in the slightest, Wizards - and most certainly novice ones - rarely go around slinging spells continually. Rather, it is assumed that there is some sort of limitation on thier ability of some sort. The notion that to 'contribute as a wizard' I must never run out of spells to fire off is a rather strange one to me.

Actually, I think there are good narrative reasons why wizards in fantasy literature are usually subject to some sort of limitation. In many cases, the wizard (or generic spellcasting type) is not the protagonist, and the limitations are there to prevent him from overshadowing the protagonist. In the cases where the wizard is the protagonist (such as in Harry Potter), the limitations may be there so that the character acts "normal" occasionally, which helps the reader identify more fully with him (e.g. Harry's problems in the mundane world, where his ability to use magic is restricted), or the limitations are the challenge to be overcome, or are there to create dramatic tension (e.g. the tension from dwindling resources is one thing that a Vancian spellcasting system with a long refresh period does do well).

 

[gizmo33]

I don't dispute your characterisation of modern soldiers. But it's not true of all armed interpersonal conflict - for example, the duelling culture of early modern Europe was driven by non-rational considerations, such as honour.

But I was assuming that only the tactical issues are of relevance here. Who you choose to kill is possibly an emotional issue, but *how* you choose to do it is probably based on a more rational assessment of the situation (or at least it is if you want to live). The dueling culture operated according to a formal set of rules so largely passions had little or nothing to do with how such things resolved themselves tactically.

In any case, a move to encounter-level resources AFAICT has no bearing on how easy emotional issues are to interject into DnD. This came up because someone (I think) claimed that emotional issues could help replace the dimension of interest lost when you lose the operational/resource dimension from DnD combat.

The only think I would think that would be a counter example would be cultural inertia - "we've been wearing platemail and using swords, and it's cowardly to not wear armor and use guns" sort of thing. However, those sorts of decisions were complicated by the fact that IRL no one can read a "manual". In comparison, players of DnD are very well educated about the effectiveness of various weapons and tactics and it's hard for me to imagine that they can put aside that knowledge for the sake of roleplaying. Or that they should in order to make a certain set of rules viable (which is a debateable point, granted).

I agree that 1st ed essentially rewards play that emulates a military operational approach. But there are other possible approaches to RPGing. What I am interested in is what mechanics will be introduced in 4e (if any) to support those other approaches (eg will there be anything like TRoS's Spiritual Attributes). Without those sorts of mechanics it will be hard to avoid the game reverting to rational resource management.

Perhaps, but if folks are going to argue for a magic system that emulates literature, here I would equally argue for an operational approach that emulates literature. It would require an excessively detailed analysis to establish this, but I would argue that characters like Conan and Aragorn, while they have personality and emotional issues, those issues are not a significant factor in their tactical approach to combat. They still use optimal weapons and tactics available.

The open-endedness that I had in mind was (i) the sequence of events prior to the climax is not pre-determined (unlike, for example, the typical 1st ed module, in which the dungeon is fairly linear) and (ii) the thematic signifcance of the climax may not be pre-determined (an example of this would be Keith Baker's Penumbra module "The Ebon Mirror").

Well, I don't want to quibble about the metaphor, but open-endedness is talking about the ends, and therefore having a number of ways you can reach a pre-determined conclusion is not open ended by virtue of the existence of the pre-determined conclusion.

(IMO it's also a very controversial thing to say that a typical 1E module is linear, I (and other folks) strongly believe this actually the opposite of the truth and that lack of linearity is a distinguishing characteristic of old-school modules, but I guess that's a tangent. - I can't believe you said that though, I'll stop hyperventilating )

And open-endedness type (ii) is the answer to your question "What does the game have to offer?" It offers the potential for the exploration of themes. In that sense, the outcome is not pre-deterined.

Outcome of what? Some of this I just don't get at all. Other stuff, like the use of "open-endedness" I suspect we have significant differences of definition. Finally, I'm not sure why a the resource management aspect of DnD is getting in the way of folks' exploration of themes. All aspect of the game have the potential of getting in way of themes - story-telling and the use of dice to randomly determine outcomes are in direct opposition to one another - though they can be managed and blended.

Unfortunately, I suspect that 4e won't emphasise thematic exploration (and I suspect that it may not have mechanics like Spiritual Attributes). Rather, I think it will emphasise "playing my guy and his/her cool powers". And I think you're right that that may not stay interesting for very long; and the game probably won't support resource-management play in the way earlier editions have. But then 5e will arrive to keep the game alive!

Yea, there's always 5E to render any of these other considerations a moot point. One thing though, I don't know what you mean by "thematic exploration" - perhaps that's something that's worth another thread to define. I suspect it has to do with a kind of story-telling style that doesn't suit my gaming style, but other than the vocabulary I have nothing to base that on.

In any case, I think I'd rather see a story telling game, than what I think 4E might turn into, which I think is more along the lines of the "playing my guy" thing you talk about.

Like I said, I'm not necessarily defending 4e. I'm just trying to explain it as somewhat rational, on its own terms.

Well that's really useful because some of us are scratching our heads thinking "what in the heck are they thinking" so it's helpful and brave of you (and the others) to try to make sense of this, even if it's not exactly your fight.

The link is the one I gave in my post, namely, his column on spellcasters.

Ok, I'll check it out.

Sure, but ever since 2E it's been changing. 2E emphasised "grand narrative" much more (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun) but didn't really provide the mechanics to support it. 3E changed direction more, and 4e is continuing the transition.

Change to what? To storytelling? IMO 3E actually was a reverse direction from the 2E culture. It put dungeon crawling, action, and hack-and-slash back into the mix with a degree of respect that was missing in 2E. There are so many moving parts to this picture that I guess you could make all sorts of generalizations - but I'm pretty sure that the 3E DMG describes the "kick down the door" style of adventuring as one of the core, supported styles. In fact, I don't think anything really changed with 3E concept wise - mostly it was a change in the tactical aspects of combat and the detail level of character building.

I'm not sure I agree with you that wargamer-types are the indispensible core of the hobby. I think that the world may have moved on. But that's realy just speculation on my part.

"Moved on" ?! I think the world is still the same inanimate pile of minerals that it always has been. That there is a vocal, aggressive, and influential (and possibly numerous) group of people that don't think like I do doesn't particularly concern me. I got used to it when country music was popular, I'm sure I'll survive this.

However, I don't think this encounter-level resource issue really serves the roleplayer-storytellers very well either. I don't think their needs and those of the wargamers are necessarily in opposition, and as you point out (I think IIRC), the eventually design of 4E might suit neither one of us properly.

So I don't see how removing the operational aspects from the game improve the story telling aspects. And I don't see that as part of Wyatt's core thesis. It doesn't hurt the story to say "you guys got really beat up today and you'll have to spend the day healing and recovering in order to continue" It's not necessarily contrary to a plot-driven game to have pseudo-realistic consequences for getting hit in the head with an axe over and over.

The type of gaming IMO that the operational stuff interfers with is *not* plot-driven story-telling - it's hyper-accelerated hack and slash gaming of the type I see in the descriptions of World of Warcraft. I don't think anyone would argue that World of Warcraft is an optimal story-telling vehicle. And making the game more like WoW IMO is going to make it hard for the hobby to survive because it doesn't play to the strengths of what RPGs have to offer - the WoW engine and system does what it sets out to do extremely well. It's like this: I say pick the right tool for the job - and a paper-and-pencil, human-moderated RPG is not the right tool for a WoW style adventure game.

 

[med stud]

Sorry, but I don't play any civ 4, so I can't comment on whether or not what you're saying here is a counter to my points. Why not stick with chess for a momment? Surely you concede that your chess-as-encounter analogy fails on the basis of the all-or-nothing nature of the game?

Why should I stick to chess? I used it as an analogy to illustrate that tactics are important even in a system where you can expand all your resources with abandon. Next time you play chess, you pick up the board and put up all your pieces. I didn't make any further analogies with chess though I responded to some other analogy. So, "surely" I won't concede my analogy exactly because that I was after! In the sense that if all powers are per encouter you can use them all in a given encounter but it still leaves room for tactics. That was my point and I won't concede it.

About civ 4, my point wasn't being civ 4 exactly; I will put it in more general terms; even games were you can win all the time can be interesting not because you win but because how you win, trying out the best method, trying to win as fast as possible etc. There, you have my argument without having to know anything about civ 4.

 

[Hussar]

Why should I stick to chess? I used it as an analogy to illustrate that tactics are important even in a system where you can expand all your resources with abandon. Next time you play chess, you pick up the board and put up all your pieces. I didn't make any further analogies with chess though I responded to some other analogy. So, "surely" I won't concede my analogy exactly because that I was after! In the sense that if all powers are per encouter you can use them all in a given encounter but it still leaves room for tactics. That was my point and I won't concede it.

About civ 4, my point wasn't being civ 4 exactly; I will put it in more general terms; even games were you can win all the time can be interesting not because you win but because how you win, trying out the best method, trying to win as fast as possible etc. There, you have my argument without having to know anything about civ 4.

A thought just occurred. Aren't PC's supposed to win all the time? I mean, if they lose, by and large, they die and the game ends. If you want the game to continue, the PC's have to win at least most if not all the time. Does it really matter if the mechanics are such that they win using X or Y amount of their resources? At the end of the day, the monster is dead, they move on to the next challenge.

What difference does it really make if they move on to the next challenge an hour or a day from now? Since the time passing is largely handwaved anyway, who cares?

 

[med stud]

A thought just occurred. Aren't PC's supposed to win all the time? I mean, if they lose, by and large, they die and the game ends. If you want the game to continue, the PC's have to win at least most if not all the time. Does it really matter if the mechanics are such that they win using X or Y amount of their resources? At the end of the day, the monster is dead, they move on to the next challenge.

What difference does it really make if they move on to the next challenge an hour or a day from now? Since the time passing is largely handwaved anyway, who cares?

You made my point better than I did

 

[Rakin]

If PC's are expected to win every time, then where the fun in winning? Might as well sit down at the table, have the GM announce "You all win!", everyone cheers and then the all go watch 12 hours of Futurama.

The fun is in seeing if that one special avatar can make it through the thick and thin, and become epic by doing what all those other characters that you rolled, that have died, coudln't do.

 

[Agamon]

Does lose necessarily mean die? Does it even always mean lose a fight?

Of course the PCs shouldn't always succeed in absolutely everything they do. This is, indeed, pointless. But they should be moving forward in the campaign in a relatively positive manner. Setbacks make the wins more fun, but they shouldn't be prevalent.

And for the record, rerolling PCs until one finally doesn't die isn't my idea of a great time, but YMMV.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If PC's are expected to win every time, then where the fun in winning? Might as well sit down at the table, have the GM announce "You all win!", everyone cheers and then the all go watch 12 hours of Futurama.

The fun is in seeing if that one special avatar can make it through the thick and thin, and become epic by doing what all those other characters that you rolled, that have died, coudln't do.

The PCs are expected to win every time, because otherwise, the adventure/story does not continue. But they have to do something for it. It is hard, but there is reasonable chance that, if they are smart enough, they _will_ prevail.
You don't put Ancient Wyrms in a 1st level dungeon because that leaves no chance to "win". Instead, you maybe put a Wyrmling in it, or a 2ndlevel Orc Chieftain and his two 1st level Orc guards at the end of the encounter. It will be hard, but it is still fair.

In the "daily resource" scheme, you will sometimes need to put only the Orc Chieftain in that encounter, because you expect that the PCs will have expended a lot of their resources when they reach him. Unless they were allowed to rest, in which case you either have an easier encounter or just add the two guards back in - it's not like the PCs really knew. In an "encounter resource" scheme, the two guards can stay there.

It's not critically bad that you might sometimes adjust your adventure on the fly, but I think it feels better if you don't have to do it.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

A quote from John Wick, taken from the L5R GM's Screen booklet, that always reminds me what "fun" is about in roleplaying games...

Some RPGs tell you to be fair.
Others tell you to be arbitrary.
Not us.
We tell you to hit your players below the belt.
Never give 'em a break.
Never let up.
Never take it easy on them.
Why? Because they'll hate you if you do.
The fact of the matter is, players are a masochistic lot. They want you to run their character through the grinder. They want you to take advantage of their character's weaknesses, to pummel them mercilessly and leace them in a bloody pulp.

However - and here's the tricky part - they also want to win.

If you've ever seen the Die Hard movies, you know exactly what I'm talking about. At the end of every film, John McLane is bruised, bloody and busted up beyond all hope of repair. But he also got the better of the bad guys. That's what players really want. They want to come out heroes, but they want to do it by the skin of their teeth.

I can't generalize it as John Wick did, but a LOT of the players I played with fit into that description, and the biggest fun was had in adventures where exactly that happened...the characters beat the odds and came out heroes, crawling, but alive.

Seeing the happy grins at the end of such a session, that's what fun is about in an RPG.