Why is it so important?

[Midknightsun]

Okay, pardon my interjection, and here's my take for what it may be worth:

Yes, like I don't know what page number of the 4E PHB the wizard is described on? I've already made this point about relevance, because it's logical but someone of a non-sequitur to suggest that incomplete information that's also irrelevant to the issue matters.

Why is it a nonsequitur? I mean, you can work only with what you know thus far and still have your entire argument negated, or severly damaged, with any new info that comes out. How is the fact that much of the new system is unknown not relevant to the argument? Maybe I'm not getting it, but I've read as much of this thread as my eyes can bear. Perhaps you could explain more simply?

So what are the missing and potentially significant pieces of the puzzle? As I've said (also unaddressed), it hasn't take much for you (and others) to conclude that the traditional DnD Vancian magic system would not be to your liking in 4E, in spite of the incomplete information that you have.

I don't know about others, but I also dislike Vancian magic. That comes NOT from 4e, that comes from seeing its effects in previous editions, and well, not liking what I've seen. Transferring it to 4e would make it different how? . . when history has shown, to those who have seen it in previous editions and NOT liked it, that another way could be better.

And don't you think it's reasonable to assume that they'll accomplish what they set out to do? If WotC, hypothetically, makes the statement that "PCs should never have to interrupt the the flow of the story in order to regain resources" doesn't this assume *some* sort of solution that we can safely say, for arguments sake, is successful?

No. ASSUME and you, as they say, make an ASS out of U and ME. Or at the very least your arguments are standing on variably shifting ground. Good luck with that, really, I mean it. I personally am under no illusions that they may not achieve what they aim for, at least on all fronts. But since many posts seem to be delving into logical points, I'd like to also bring up the assumption of something unprovable (which it is at this point) and how well that usually goes over in logical circles.

Does it make any sense to withold judgement because WotC might fail to achieve it's design goals? If 4E says "the goal is that every game session ends in a TPK" I suppose you would want to wait for the rules details before having an opinion on that?

Everybody can have opinions, of course, there is a saying about those as well. However, there are differences between the hyperbolic examples you have been giving and what would actually be sent forth. Degree of plausibility does matter with examples, as anything taken to an extreme can break pretty much any argument, making all this banter pretty pointless.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Your idea of significant appears to be based entirely on wether something effects the NEXT encounter.

Something can be significant based solely on how it impacts the CURRENT encounter.

Have you read what I've written thus far? Did you read the point-by-point analysis I made? If you had, you will know that I clearly accept that "Something can be significant based solely on how it impacts the CURRENT encounter." In fact, this point is crucial to what I am saying (as AFAICT, what Gizmo33 is saying as well).

Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during an encounter, then the encounter is consequential. Therefore, whatever is used in the encounter is consequential.

If per-day resources are used during the encounter, then the encounter is consequential, because you no longer have those resources for later encounters.

As the odds are very good that you will use per-day resources only in those encounters 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 encounters.

Moreover, as Grog points out (and as Gizmo33, Celebrim, myself, and others pointed out earlier), if you use your per-day resources, the next encounter becomes much more deadly, because you only have per-encounter and at-will resources. Therefore, if you can, you are likely to rest in order to regain your per-day resources.

Which is, AFAICT, the point Gizmo33, Celebrim, et al were making in the first place.

"Per encounter" resources were stated in Wyatt's blog to be designed to remove the 9-9:15 adventuring day. However, the "per encounter" design means that encounters that use only "per encounter" or "at will" abilities become insignificant (4 goblins vs. 10th level fighter) once the players understand the new paradigm.

Thus, in order to provide challenge, the DM must make every encounter able to use up per-day resources (so that, as Grog puts it, a "A PC who uses his per-encounter resources too soon or in an inefficient manner could easily find himself in trouble very quickly").

Which in turn means that, once per-day resources have been used, as Grog again puts it, "Death or defeat could be a serious risk there, but obviously the PCs won't be using per-day resources because they don't have any per-day resources available to use."

Which in turn leads the PCs to rest to regain said resources.

Which means that the problem the new paradigm is intended to resolve.....isn't resolved.


RC

 

[gizmo33]

I dont like the Vancian system. In any addition. At least not as the sole means of a wizard using magic.

But why wouldn't the Vancian system be the perfect fit for the other changes in 4E? Since we don't know *anything* about 4E, and all reasoning is invalid as a consequence, then why isn't that explicitly recognized in what you're saying, like this:

I am coming from the position that I assume that they are going to want to try to introduce new options without completely destroying existing playstyles.

Now I can stonewall your attempt to make this assertion and talk about the logical conclusions of it. After all, since we presumably no *nothing* about 4E then on what basis do you repeatedly make statements to this effect? Or I can just accept the hypothetical that what you're saying above is the case, and talk about how the other facts hang together with it. The fact is that we have a pretty clear statement of a goal by James Wyatt. How well does his objectives fit with what you're saying here? How likely is it that Wyatt can accomplish what he wants in the rule system and still preserve existing playstyles? How relevant are previous experiences with previous editions? How relevant are the analogies that can be drawn between per-encounter powers in 4E and powers in previous editions of DnD or other systems (like Star Wars). There is a *substantial* amount of information out there that is relevant to this discussion and I really disagree with the notion that we're as in the dark as you say.

I do that only because just about the only thing you say that I can understand is that you think per-encounter abilities will remove the concept of resource management and wont do anything of the things they claim it will do...although I am a little unclear on what you think they are claiming its going to do.

Given that you don't know exactly what I'm talking about IMO it's at least prudent to withold judgement about whether or not my statements are sensible until I'm given a chance to clarify?

As near as I can tell your fixed on the notion that everyone is automatically going to do things a certain way under certain circumstances.

I'm not fixed on anything, IMO that characterization is unecessary. What I am doing is insisting on getting answers to some statements I've made because me (and others like RC) seem to being going around on some issues that are not being understood or addressed.

The thing is tho, while a baseline has to be assumed to some extent, D&D is a GAME, which is social, and interactive, and which is generally also a means of interactive storytelling. So some things, especially play style related things, cant be determined by crunching the numbers.

And some things *can* apparently be considered more universal than others. Neither Monte Cook nor James Wyatt qualified their statements with anything like "but this issue is entirely a matter of playstyle". In fact, the nearly explicit idea in both of their idea is that the core rule system as a bearing on how people play the game. That's why there is a 4E and why the designers concern themselves with how it works. If it was just a matter of play-style then there would be nothing to fix.

Now suppose you're saying that some things are play style and some things aren't. It's already been established that the resource issues and their impact on the story line is not play-style dependant in Wyatt's opinion. He establishes this because if it were play-style dependent, there would be no problem. In Wyatt's example, he presumably describes a game experience where the "plot" elements of the game are significant, and the resource management issues are interfering with that. Now in spite of the fact that Wyatt's players all care about the plot, they don't *care enough* to keep themselves from camping at 9:15. IMO the obvious implication here is that the resource management issue has an effect that spans across multple play-styles. But we don't know enough about the playtest results of 4E to say that this will be the case? Apparently that doesn't stop Wyatt so why should it stop me?

I dont mean this as an insult, but trying to communicate with you often feels like trying to have a discussion with a computer.

I don't want to be overly sensitive but saying that my ideas are insensible without any real supporting substance doesn't give me much to respond to. Talking about how you feel is less controversial IMO so, no, I don't find it insulting at all. It's the difference between saying "I feel like I"m talking to a crazy person", which IMO is ok, and "you are a crazy person" which IMO is not.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The flaw has been pointed out over and over again, by myself and others. Anything that can make a difference in a given encounter the PCs are facing is, by definition, significant.

OK, imagine this:

(A) I am going to give you a +5 bonus to hit in all encounters. No doubt, that is significant, right?

(B) Now, I am going to give everyone else a +5 bonus to defend against your attacks.

Your bonus is "significant" if A is true, but not B, or if B is true, but not A. So long as both A and B are true, however, your bonus is not significant.

Likewise, if

(A) You gain the ability to cast fireball once per encounter, and

(B) Said encounter is always balanced so that casting fireball means that you will win the encounter

Then casting fireball is only significant if A is true, but not B, or if B is true, but not A. So long as both A and B are true, however, your fireball is not significant. You are the proverbial 10th level fighter fighting four goblins.

It doesn't matter what A and B are, so long as they balance each other out. What is actually significant is something that shifts that balance. So, yes, it will take players a while (3 months? 6? a year?) to realize that their A has no real effect on anything, and then you are exactly back where you started -- skipping the "boring" encounters and having a 15 minute adventuring day.


RC

 

[gizmo33]

Okay, pardon my interjection, and here's my take for what it may be worth:

It's a public forum. Welcome aboard and have at it.

Why is it a nonsequitur? I mean, you can work only with what you know thus far and still have your entire argument negated, or severly damaged, with any new info that comes out. How is the fact that much of the new system is unknown not relevant to the argument? Maybe I'm not getting it, but I've read as much of this thread as my eyes can bear. Perhaps you could explain more simply?

Because what we know is probably sufficient to outline some general features that the new system will have. Especially when it's phrased in terms of "we don't want players to have to rest to regain resources". If the preconditions for the argument are sufficiently expressed, then you can make reasonable hypothetical statements. Changes in the preconditions don't invalidate the reasoning, they just change it's applicability. "If my house burns down, I better plan on finding somewhere else to live". Does it really matter if the house burns down due to electrical problems or a cigarrette? People's aren't fools for making such plans and then finding the preconditions don't hold. I don't know how much more simple I can make this, I'll need some help.

Transferring it to 4e would make it different how? . . when history has shown, to those who have seen it in previous editions and NOT liked it, that another way could be better.

So history and people's experiences have some bearing on 4E? Or only when their conclusions agree with your own? That was my point - I don't understand why there is the double standard - when a point is made that agrees with your opinion it's ok, but when it is at odds with it then *all of the sudden* we don't have sufficient information to have an opinion on the subject.

No. ASSUME and you, as they say, make an ASS out of U and ME.

Says anyone who is not well versed in logic. Assumptions are a basic part of any reasoning process. You have to be explicit about the premises of your argument to be certain that the conclusions aren't taken out of context. Ironically, the definition of "assumption" in this common aphorism is also an assumption.

But since many posts seem to be delving into logical points, I'd like to also bring up the assumption of something unprovable (which it is at this point) and how well that usually goes over in logical circles.

Since it's unprovable I think you would be hard pressed to prove that it is unprovable. Again, the logic of what is legitimate or what isn't in terms of logic should not be based on whether or not the expressed opinion is one you agree with.

Everybody can have opinions, of course, there is a saying about those as well.

Not an appropriate saying for a message board whose obvious purpose is for the expression of opinions.

However, there are differences between the hyperbolic examples you have been giving and what would actually be sent forth.

Maybe Imaro could clarify, but one of his first posts actually stated IIRC that his experiences with Star Wars SE were fairly consistent with what RC and I were saying. So your assertion that what I am saying is hyperbolic is just more opinion, which again fails to be on the receiving end of your aphorisms about opinions - again AFAICT because it's an opinion that you agree with.

Degree of plausibility does matter with examples, as anything taken to an extreme can break pretty much any argument, making all this banter pretty pointless.

"The degree to which the significant timeframe of DnD is encounter based is the degree to which non lethal encounters will be less significant than in previous editions". I fail to see the hyperbole in statments like this. Like Merlion, I advise you to be more specific because your assertions don't hold up to any specific examples I can think of but I assume (oooh) that you must be thinking of something specific rather than just pulling this assertion out of thin air.

 

[Grog]

Likewise, if

(A) You gain the ability to cast fireball once per encounter, and

(B) Said encounter is always balanced so that casting fireball means that you will win the encounter

Then casting fireball is only significant if A is true, but not B, or if B is true, but not A. So long as both A and B are true, however, your fireball is not significant. You are the proverbial 10th level fighter fighting four goblins.

???

If casting fireball always means you win the encounter, then casting fireball is very significant. In fact, it's too significant.

Actually, this may be an extreme example, but it illustrates my point very well. If a PC had a 1/encounter ability that he could use to automatically win whatever fight he was facing at the time, I don't think anyone could seriously argue that that's not a significant resource just because it's not allocated on a per-day basis.

 

[Merlion]

Thats because that issue, in the end, is going to be decided by playstyle, which isn't something that can be quantified or determined based on the rules.

Groups that insist on being at 100% at all times will always do the "9:00-9:15" thing. And those people probably wont see it as a problem.





THESE issues are what lead other groups, groups that don't necessarily feel the need specifically to be at 100% at all times, to still do the 9:00-9:15 thing. These groups may be quite willing to go until say 20 or 30% resources. But the trouble is, in the current system, some classes drop to 20, 10 or even 0%, especially at low levels, while everyone else is still at 50% or more.

This to me is still the answer to the "per encounter abilities won't solve the 9:00-9:15 problem."

It will solve it, except for those who will play that way no matter what.

And the designers have said there will still be resource management.

So I am still not sure what people are so worried about.

 

[gizmo33]

This to me is still the answer to the "per encounter abilities won't solve the 9:00-9:15 problem."

It will solve it, except for those who will play that way no matter what.

Well then tell wizard's that they can shoot their crossbow 3 times/encounter. That, presumably, will solve the problem then. Parties won't camp because the wizard still has 3 shots with his crossbow ready for next encounter? As I've said often, I don't think simply saying there will be per-encounter resources is enough to say that 4E won't have this problem. The nature of the per-encounter resources, their relative power to the daily resources, will have an effect on the 9:00-9:15 problem.

 

[Jackelope King]

Absolutely agreed. In fact, the purpose of the attrition model, in part, is to allow a fight that is not win/lose to have a significant effect on future events.

I fully advocate battles in which PCs get a chance to show off, or are on a very cool battlefield, but I don't think that these things are inherently "cool" when shorn of context. And, while I fully agree that (as I have stated previously) this sort of design carries a "shine" that lasts several months until the players realize that their actions have no significance, I do not see where this (or anything in post 588) negates my point.

This "shine" your hypothosize is interesting, but it's not once I've ever seen, to be honest. I've been running and playing in the same group for over a year now in what is probably the purest attrition-less game I can think of offhand (M&M) and there's been no "loss of fun". I also ran a group through a two-year D&D campaign and played with the same group in a year-and-a-half game. I'll let you know if I do note any loss of shine (shinelessness? deshiniosity? double-plus un-shine? )

For instance, in 588, you suppose the resource attrition model leads to combats designed only to remove resources. Not only does this not clearly follow, but if your battle in which the PCs shine and/or takes place on a cool battlefield also helps to make the PC decisions in those battles meaningful within the game, so much the better.

I've broken down my reasoning earlier quite clearly in an earlier post, in a point-by-point manner. I've yet to read any response that invalidates, or demonstrates an error in, either that reasoning or the premises that it is built upon. Which isn't, of course, proof that I am right, but certainly suggests ways in which, if I am wrong, I can be demonstrated to be so.

RC

Could you possibly link to that? I'm approaching exam block crunch-time and admittedly haven't managed to read through the whole thread. I'd be interested in what you have to say.

This doesn't quite capture the priority issues that I'm trying to identify. Resource management serves as an effective way IMO for the game to include a dimension of failure other than PC death or failure that's plot-dependent. It's also a fairly realistic type of failure.

Some people play DnD knowing that there is no real chance of their PCs dying, and still have fun. So saying that's something is fun is in the context of what type of game you prefer. Imaro, for example, has played games without the emphasis on daily resource management and AFAICT has a different opinion on it.

And I'm not arguing that it's my preference. In fact, I believe I was quite clear on that. My appologies if I wasn't.

"Who do I kill first" IMO is not a resource issue per se. I disagree with something that statements like this seem to imply, and that is that the only difference between per-encounter and per-day is the time frame. The differences IMO are actually more substantial and your statement above actually hints at this - because now instead of deciding *whether* to use a spell, your simply deciding who to use it against. Also important to note: the encounter time frame is something the PCs have a large role in determining, to end the encounter they simply run away. But you can't end the day by running away.

This would be the first fundamental disconnect, then. Your actions are the single most fundamental resource a character has access to. The per-day time-frame is easy to escape, even in D&D (rope trick, the mansion/house spells, teleport, plane shift, etc. etc.), and in my experience, roughly on par (if maybe slightly more difficult) with running away from a fight.

Deciding how to spend your action is probably the most essential bit of resource management in the game. Sure, you get more next turn, but combat is fluid enough that a fireball on turn two might not be anywhere near as effective as it would've been on turn 1 (maybe your melee guy is now in the way, or the enemy scattered).

And your question of "whether" to use a resource is also answered by what we heard about 4E so far: you only have a limited number of uses per encounter and per day of certain abilities. So if you can only pitch 1 fireball in a fight, the decision still remains of when you're going to do it in the fight.

I don't see this at all. You are very much capable of running the "one encounter per day" type adventure as you were before. Adding per-encounter resources in order to keep wizards from dominating these kinds of scenarios IMO is fine with me, it's some of the other goals that I'm not too keen on.

For me, I balance adventures based on the sum total of the encounters, and the ability of the "dungeon" to react to the PCs, so yes, that's how it happens. If the over all number of probably combats during the adventure is too easy, then this needs to be adjusted. This isn't fundementally different from what you would do with encounter-based adventures, only that I do it per adventure rather than per encounter. However, there are intimations here that the DM is actually linearly determining which encounters the PCs will face at each step, and I don't do this.

I tend to balance adventures based on how it impacts the PCs, and how the world around them is reacting. For instance, in a modern supers game, the average gang-land boss isn't going to bring a bunch of big-wig supervillains on a robbery, so if this mobster is in a heist and the PCs swoop in to stop him, he's pretty much relying on mooks with guns. I build encounters that make sense in light of what the group knows about the world. Against mooks, they can probably expect an easy fight. If, on the other hand, it's a team of supervillains doing the heist, it'll probably be much tougher. The characters are a part of the world, and the world will react appropriately to their actions.

I disagree with this too. The system isn't built around the 4-encounter/day. The CR system predicts 4/day. You can just as easily increase the EL of an encounter and it becomes a 2-encounter per day. Or decrease it and get more. There's nothing fundemental about 4/day unless you match CRs with party level, but there is absolutely no mandate to do that.

You said it yourself. The CR system predicts 4/day. Yes, you can increase the EL of an encounter and it becomes a 2-encounter day, but what if I wanted it to still be a 4-encounter day? Or if the PCs are feeling particularly daring, a 10-encounter day? Or what if I just want to have a string of tiny fights? And the way that resources are spread, any deviation from the predicted 4/day (adjusted for difficulty) tends to favor one group over another, and risk overwhelming the PCs.

EDIT FOR CLARITY: What I mean by "Yes, you can increase the EL of an encounter and it becomes a 2-encounter day, but what if I wanted it to still be a 4-encounter day?" is "What if I want to have 4 tougher-than-average encounters in a day?"

Whereas in the per-encounter paradigm, what do you do if the BBEG isn't high enough level for the party? Add mooks? Whatelse can you do? I don't see why the per-encounter paradigm changes anything about this - an easy situation, whether it's per encounter or per day is still an easy situation.

Why would I design an adversary for the PCs who wasn't tough enough? This is something of a straw-man. It doesn't make sense that I would intentionally create what should be a difficult fight with a weak foe.

It's a game, so everything is artificial and rules-based at some level. The idea that you get beat in the head with an axe and your cleric heals you and a minute later gets all his spells back is as least as artificial (and IMO moreso) than anything else.

That's fine. I like to add more to my games in terms of character development and worldbuilding. The rules should always facilitate that and shouldn't get in the way.

I don't engineer pacing in my games because I don't engineer outcomes or the stories. Pacing in my game is driven by the player's choices and what makes sense for the situation, not how cool I would think it would be if the BBEG tells the PC that he's his father just before he falls off the cliff. That sort of heavy-handed manipulation IMO is fine for a novel but not what my players expect from a game. However - this is entirely a play-style issue. The irony here is that I'm skeptical that per-encounter resources support story-based gaming better than per-day. IMO per-encounter resources introduce as much plot-busting stuff as per-day.

Don't think of it as engineering pacing. Think of it as the artificial pacing built into your system not inhibiting your game. Under the current system, if the players think it would be more fun to storm the dungeon after they stumble upon it while clearing out a goblin camp, they may be forced to decide that, nah, they'd better rest first. Under a per-encounter system, they might be tired and a little hurt, but there's no artificial "But the wizard already wasted his fireball!" I'm not going to beat them over the head with a bat and make them go in. I've played in and run games where the players literally did nothing but interact with one another and NPCs, with no dice rolled, and it was a blast, so please don't think I'm someone who scripts out, to the second, everything that happens in a game. I rarely enter an arc I'm asked to run with an end in mind. I have a few moments I think would be cool, and try to work them in around what the players seem interested in.

So getting back to the original point, how does a per-encounter system better enable this? Because at the end of a long, brutal mission, if the PCs were to discover something that really spurs them on, a hook that they absolutely want to pursue right now, how lame is it for one of them to pipe up and say, "Yeah, I know saving the princess has been your dream and all, but can we wait a day? I don't have any fireballs left."

Fatigue rules are a wonderful thing? So you use them? I doubt it based on what you've said above. I am always wary of unsubstantiated advice.

I do when I play in True20. The spellcasting system is essentially unlimited use, but you risk fatigue every time you use it. If you fail once, you're fatigued and suffer minor penalties. Fail again or by a wider margin, and you're exhausted, suffering heavier penalties. Or if you fail by a very wide margin or a third time, and you're unconscious. I'm adapting them as an option for my own modified d20 system for people who want a grittier style of play where attrition is more of a factor. I also use the rules as actual rules for sleep and resting, so characters who want to go four days without sleep need to make saves to avoid becoming fatigued. Works pretty well, all things considered.

 

[Raven Crowking]

???

If casting fireball always means you win the encounter, then casting fireball is very significant. In fact, it's too significant.

Actually, this may be an extreme example, but it illustrates my point very well. If a PC had a 1/encounter ability that he could use to automatically win whatever fight he was facing at the time, I don't think anyone could seriously argue that that's not a significant resource just because it's not allocated on a per-day basis.

OK, I will try this one more time, because obviously I am not being very clear in what I am trying to say.

Imagine that you have a power A. Doesn't matter what it is. It could be any combination of things, or a single thing, or whathaveyou. What it means, though, is that there is a class of encounters that you can always win, and you can always use power A in those encounters.

Let's call that class of encounters Class 4 encounters, for the sake of the analogy.

There are other types of encounters. In those encounters, your power A can help you, but it doesn't mean that you will automatically succeed.

You also have power B. Power B can be used only once, but using it will mean that you will automatically succeed in one Class 5 encounter. If you run into a Class 5 encounter without power B available, there is a 50% chance of success. If you run into a Class 6 encounter without power B available, there is only a 25% chance of success.

Now, you have two adventures. The first consists of several Class 4 encounters, at least 2 Class 5 encounters, and at least one Class 6 encounter. The second consists of 30 Class 4 encounters. You have been told the general makeup of these adventures upfront.

Here are the questions:

(1) On the first adventure, after a series of Class 4 encounters, you run into a Class 5 encounter and are forced to use your power B. You can rest without penalty. Resting will recharge power B. Do you do so? Why?

(2) Which adventure is liable to be more interesting? Why?

If you can answer those questions honestly, perhaps I can explain the difference between what I am thinking and what you are thinking.


RC