Why is it so important?

[Grog]

I've been one of those people saying that. Other than "no" I haven't seen much of a reason why we're wrong on this. The evidence for my position exists in the way people currently assess risk in DnD, which is the reason that people consider the "4 goblins vs. 10th level fighter" encounter to be not worth playing - and previous posts have tried to make the comparison in detail. The factors that make this so seem to not change based on the rule changes proposed for 4E, yet some people claim that, but so far I haven't seen any reason for it.

The reason is this - in 4E, the inclusion of per-encounter abilities allows the PCs to face far more significant threats without tapping into their daily resources. In 3E (and all previous editions of D&D), any significant threat required the PCs to use daily resources because daily resources were the only resources available for them to use. The addition of encounter-level resources changes this paradigm.

I don't know how to put it any more simply than that. That is the reason that things will be different in 4E (exactly how different, of course, remains to be seen). You are of course free to disagree with this reason, but that does not mean that the reason has not been provided to you.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

BTW - I read Monte's comments on the DnD spell system on the link that you posted and I find it strangely as paradoxical as a lot of the comments on this thread. He defines certain types of adversity (like running out of resources) as "unfun" without giving me a clear sense of how distinguishes between "fun" and "unfun" adversity. He talks about how resting to recover resources can interfere with the ongoing "plot" of the adventure - was "plot" really covered in the 3E DMG as a major consideration for adventure design? When did DnD become a story-teller game, I wonder?

It ISN'T a "story-teller" game. Storytelling implies that most of the emphasis is on the story. In D&D, most of the emphasis is on combat.

However, there IS story in D&D. The average story I've seen in a D&D game is: "The kidnapped woman will be sacrificed by the cultists! You must save her before she dies" or "This man has been accused of murder, but we don't think he did it, if you don't find proof that someone else did it by morning, he'll be executed" or "The book we need is in that burning building filled with evil people who also want it. We have to go in and defeat them and get the book" or "Find out what the enemy has planned before they attack in 3 days".

There's OFTEN a time limit of some time that you're working under. Sometimes there isn't. However, there is almost always a consequence of spending extra time("If we leave the dungeon and come back tomorrow when we're at full resources, they'll have time to bring in new guards and reset all the traps and we'll have to fight a couple of battles again just to get to the same spot in the dungeon we did today").

This is what he is referring to when he says that resting to recover resources interferes with the plot.

As for the rest. He figures out what is fun and what is unfun the same way the rest of us do...but doing things and then seeing how he feels about them. I don't know anyone who plays D&D who would tell you that running out of spells is FUN. Some people will accept it as part of the game, but I doubt anyone I know would say "You know what's REALLY cool? When you run out of spells and you know the next enemy you come across will kill you and you have no way to stop it, since you have no healing available."

I know *I* assume everyone feels this way because...I don't know anyone in real life who doesn't.

But then he turns around and says something like "but daily resource management is a cool part of the game and something I wish all character classes had". The change I found to be startling and weird. Why in the world would he say resource management is unfun and that it interferes with some important aspect of the game but then turn around and say it's a good thing?

Resource management isn't unfun. However, running OUT of resources IS. That's the crux of the problem. It's cool to have to decide if you are going to cast your fireball against these creatures or save it for later or should you cast your haste now or save it for later, as a lot of people have said.

However, the unfun part of it is when you have no resources at all and are forced to either risk certain death(or at least certain uselessness while the rest of the group has fun) or turn around and possibly run into the time limit problem I described above.

It's cool when you are deciding between your haste and your fireball this round. It's unfun when you're deciding between your crossbow and delaying this round.

So, the only solution that keeps the fun part(the resource management) while eliminating the bad(actually running out) is to give you a number of abilities that you can use per day and have to manage while making it so that even when you are completely out of resources, you can still have fun.

Plus, you add micro "resource management" in the per encounter format. This way you have the fun of managing resources ("If I use my once per encounter heal now, and the enemy hits even harder next round, I can't do it again.") without the unfun of having to worry about the time limit("If I cast my heal now and we fight 2 more encounters in this castle, we likely won't save the princess"). To me this sounds like the best of both worlds.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I see. If I understand you now, what you're saying seems pretty logical - the interval of time in which the PCs regain resources is the key time frame. My comments could equally be understood in the context of "what happens when you make 'the encounter' they key time frame in a DnD game".

You make a good point. What IS the consequence of making "the encounter" the key time frame in a D&D game?

Let's assume no per day abilities at all and assume ALL resources can be recovered at the end of each encounter(which isn't true of 4th Ed, but let's assume for a second):

-The players would go out with ALL their abilities in every round instead of holding back
-The players would not be afraid of anything that doesn't have the chance of killing them
-The players don't have to worry about bad luck making them run into a "time limit" of the plot somewhere
-The players have something cool to do EVERY round of every combat
-The players can fight as many fights per day as they want

Now how many of these are good things and how many of them are bad things I suppose is up to the individual. The only bad things I see i this whole list might be not being afraid of anything that doesn't kill them and being able to go ALL out.

However, both of those things as solved by introducing a couple of per day abilities which solves the two problems without removing the benefits. The sticking point seems to be the "fight as many fights per day as they want" point. Which is good IMO, but might not be in others.

Implementing mitigating factors for failure simply changes the perception of risk (which is part of the problem with the "exclusive per-encounter abilities" scheme). To say that an encounter is interesting because it proposes a chance of death, and then to redefine death as something that's recoverable ultimately changes nothing. Now PCs are leaving the dungeon after 15 minutes because they need to recover action points, or they're not returning at all because action points are a lifetime resource, or you make action points an encounter-level resource to solve the problem.

Now you could probably say something like "but an encounter can be perceived as being dangerous without PCs having to use action points", which leads round about to another frequent topic in this debate, which is my final point on this post.

I agree...the perception of risk is changed somewhat when you implement these. However, in my experience, the perception of risk when these are involved is:

"We can defeat most enemies we come across since we are powerful adventurers. However, rarely we run into something that we wouldn't be able to handle if we didn't have the ability to press the emergency button. If we DO run into one of those things, we have the ability to survive them...but only a limited number of times, so we have to be careful not to get in over our heads."

This is almost precisely the level of risk I'd like to have in my games...no actual deaths, just the perception that "if we make a mistake enough times, we MIGHT die...and we don't want that to happen."

 

[pemerton]

the only solution that keeps the fun part(the resource management) while eliminating the bad(actually running out) is to give you a number of abilities that you can use per day and have to manage while making it so that even when you are completely out of resources, you can still have fun.

Plus, you add micro "resource management" in the per encounter format. This way you have the fun of managing resources ("If I use my once per encounter heal now, and the enemy hits even harder next round, I can't do it again.") without the unfun of having to worry about the time limit("If I cast my heal now and we fight 2 more encounters in this castle, we likely won't save the princess"). To me this sounds like the best of both worlds.

I like this way of presenting things - I think. If I put it this way, have I got it right?:

*One type of fun is having things to do (especially in combat), and with per-encounter resources every PC always has things to do;

*One type of fun is tactical resource management, and per-encounter resources deliver that.​

I can see that working. I can also see some possible issues, related to each:

*If the thing to do is often ineffectual compared to what others are doing, it won't be that much fun - this puts pressure on the per-encounter abilities to be effectual;

*If mucking up the tactical play doesn't matter, so there is no such thing as a "tactical victory", it may not be that much fun (some players enjoy tactics for its own sake, but some do not) - this puts pressure on encounters to be challenging, and the effectuality of per-encounter abilities only increases this pressure.​

Therefore, I think Gizmo33 may be right to infer a greater number of life-threatening combats as part of this approach. How Action Points and Resurrection work then become big issues in 4e design. Does anyone have any insight on this?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you kidding? A goblin in 1E had less chance to affect a 10th level fighter because, if the fighter's AC was low enough, the goblin couldn't hit him even on a natural 20.

That's a mighty big "IF" there. 1e allowed for all sorts of play where the fighter's AC might not be as high as you imagine.

You're making the same mistake that gizmo33 did. The key time frame is not after the battle, it's during the battle.

Given that both Gizmo33 and I are saying that, unless there is a significant chance of death during a battle it will be pointless (and hence, once the players realize this, unfun), I'd have to say that you are assuming we don't "get" something that was brought up long, long ago by both Gizmo33 and myself.

Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during the battle, then the battle is consequential. If significant resources are used during the battle, then the battle is consequential. As the odds are very good that you will use per-day resources only in those battles where you believe there is a significant chance of death/defeat, that makes it likely that we are largely talking about the same group of battles.

The problem the "per-encounter" ability design is supposed to fix is that of PCs resting after they use their significant resources. This design means that you can extend combats beyond those that use up significant resources, certainly, but only by making those combats inconsequential. Which we have already been told, time and again, is unfun.


RC

 

[Imaro]

I agree...the perception of risk is changed somewhat when you implement these. However, in my experience, the perception of risk when these are involved is:

"We can defeat most enemies we come across since we are powerful adventurers. However, rarely we run into something that we wouldn't be able to handle if we didn't have the ability to press the emergency button. If we DO run into one of those things, we have the ability to survive them...but only a limited number of times, so we have to be careful not to get in over our heads."

This is almost precisely the level of risk I'd like to have in my games...no actual deaths, just the perception that "if we make a mistake enough times, we MIGHT die...and we don't want that to happen."

Just one question about the above statement, if there is no actual risk, doesn't there become a point at which a player realizes this(granted it will take a little time of actual play) and even the "perception" of death starts to fall apart. What I don't get is can't this be accomplished in D&D 3.5...I can send wave after wave of inconsequential low-level CR monsters at the PC's and it will not deplete any significant resources. Or better yet, let the PC's roll or do whatever but ultimately fudge so they win every encounter. This type of play, unless a genre device in something like Star Wars, is just, after the umpteenth time unsatisfying to me as a player and GM.

I guess I just see no point in playing a game, which stresses such tactically oriented things as exact movement, AoO, combat maneuvers, etc., but ultimately makes 90% of the tactical choices I make have no, or such minimal consequences to my actions, that there is little to no risk involved. It seems pointless. Then when I actually do have real risk involved it is a life or death struggle, where the fact that I may have used one of my per-day abilities could mean a TPK. This doesn't sound that "fun" to me.

It's funny to me because I play Exalted and it's pretty much exactly as you describe above, but still has per day resources(essence) and it's whole genre is based around badassitude...the problem it runs into is that the major fights are often a more desperate feeling, life or death struggle, while fighting "mooks" is a breeze. Now this being a "genre" based game it has certain tropes that make it easy for the players to determine that mortal guards are clearly "mooks" and the fact that the Deathknight; Mourner of the East Wind isn't. Thus they have a clue as to when the fight ramps up to a level where they better be giving it they're all. I wonder how D&D will acomplish this( some type of signal that this particular fight is the one where you should use your big abilities) or will it be a...just figure it out type of thing. If it's the latter I could see the major encounters becoming even more deadly and mistaken expenditure of major resources on insignificant fights causing other problems to arise.

The reason is this - in 4E, the inclusion of per-encounter abilities allows the PCs to face far more significant threats without tapping into their daily resources. In 3E (and all previous editions of D&D), any significant threat required the PCs to use daily resources because daily resources were the only resources available for them to use. The addition of encounter-level resources changes this paradigm.

I don't know how to put it any more simply than that. That is the reason that things will be different in 4E (exactly how different, of course, remains to be seen). You are of course free to disagree with this reason, but that does not mean that the reason has not been provided to you.

I have to disagree here, per-encounter abilities do not make it so that the PC's can face more significant threats without tapping into their daily resources.

A significant threat has a greater chance for a TPK or even the death of a PC to arise, as well as a greater chance the players will expend their per-day abilities. So as you send more significant threats, the only thing you're doing is increasing the likelihood of death, or the camping situation. Now, you can throw numerous minimal threats at them...but then they aren't really threats are they, and you could o the same thing in D&D 3.5...start them at fourth level and hit em with dire rats, kobolds, goblins, etc. until they get to the Big Bad.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The reason is this - in 4E, the inclusion of per-encounter abilities allows the PCs to face far more significant threats without tapping into their daily resources.

Define "significant" in this context, please.

 

[gizmo33]

However, there IS story in D&D. The average story I've seen in a D&D game is: "The kidnapped woman will be sacrificed by the cultists! You must save her before she dies" or "This man has been accused of murder, but we don't think he did it, if you don't find proof that someone else did it by morning, he'll be executed" or "The book we need is in that burning building filled with evil people who also want it. We have to go in and defeat them and get the book" or "Find out what the enemy has planned before they attack in 3 days".

AFAICT these aren't really stories, there more of what I would call adventure hooks. The complete story would be "The kidnapped woman will be sacrificed to the cultists unless you save her. Oh look you used all of your spells against the mooks in the first encounter and now you have to retreat and rest. And when you wake up the next day you find she's been sacrificed. Better luck next time".

Ok, that's not much of a story either, but it at least covers an example of the complete start to finish, whereas your examples are only the start.

All failure interferes with the "story" if your story assumes success by the PCs. The reason that resource management is significant is because there are consequences for not getting it right. Take away these consequences (and the affect on the "plot") and resource management is just a pointless exercise. Now it's entirely possible that some/alot of DMs *have already* decided that the players will succeed, and thus they see resource management as just an annoying feature of the game that can get in the way of their "plot". If this is the case then IMO they should just acknowledge that this is how they want to run the game from the beginning, so that in that I case I can see what the actual purpose of their game is rather than having to infer it.

 

[Celebrim]

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).

I agree that there are good narrative reasons why wizard's in fantasy literature are usually subject to some sort of limitation. I'm not sure what I said that suggested to you that I thought those limitations where arbitrary, but I never thought that they were. I was merely stating that in literary source material, Wizard's generally faced some limitation on thier power. The literary reasons you suggest are in fact I think excellent reasons for playing wizards in a RPG under, if you will understand the word, 'harsh' limitations. Magic by its very nature tends to overshadow even heroic mundanity and ordinariness. If magic is available with few restrictions, very quickly you create a world were everyone significant wields awesome magic much as in Wuxia you have a world were everyone who is signficant can 'fly'. While that's a perfectly valid world, I'm not sure its necessarily the one I want to have.

 

[Jackelope King]

Given that both Gizmo33 and I are saying that, unless there is a significant chance of death during a battle it will be pointless (and hence, once the players realize this, unfun), I'd have to say that you are assuming we don't "get" something that was brought up long, long ago by both Gizmo33 and myself.

Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during the battle, then the battle is consequential. If significant resources are used during the battle, then the battle is consequential. As the odds are very good that you will use per-day resources only in those battles where you believe there is a significant chance of death/defeat, that makes it likely that we are largely talking about the same group of battles.

The problem the "per-encounter" ability design is supposed to fix is that of PCs resting after they use their significant resources. This design means that you can extend combats beyond those that use up significant resources, certainly, but only by making those combats inconsequential. Which we have already been told, time and again, is unfun.


RC

I'm curious as to how you justify this viewpoint that battles must consume resources in light of what I discussed back in post 588, RC. Battles have other significance than just, "Oh my, I hope my fighter lives through this one!"

There are battles in which this is the case. Those are indeed very fun. In a tough fight where the players really need to pull together to just survive, you can get some very tense, very exciting moments.

But all battles needn't be this way. Can't a fight be interesting just because the PCs got a chance to show off, or because they got to fight on a very cool battlefield (like a storm-tossed ship or in a tavern where tables can be upended and ropes can be swung from)? Or because the PCs gained some important in-game resource, like advancing to the next level of the dungeon? Certainly the tactical resource management you describe can be very fun, but do you truly believe that this is the only factor to be considered when you try to decide what sort of pacing is right for the game, or how best to challenge your players in an encoutner?

And as I said, the focus of resource management is moving from the macro per-day level more towards the micro per-encounter level, where you have to make the choice of not when to do something today, but what is your best option this round. That's the fundamental resource that the game looks like it will focus on.