Why is it so important?

[gizmo33]

I expect that same old complaint to resurface if, as Wyatt's blog implies, the change in resource management is how the designers tackled the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem. I certainly agree that the problem could be tackled in other ways; just not this way.

Wyatt's latest blog entry, the link posted a few pages back on this thread, actually has some positive things to say about resource management and makes it seem like it will stay in the game. This "per-encounter only" resource system was a though experiment for me - I never thought they'd go that far but folks on this thread actually defend it. Monte Cook in his blog (also cited somewhere on this thread) also stops well short of removing daily resources entirely. In terms of what 4E will actually become (which, as I've mentioned, was not really my topic on this thread) I don't think it will be encounter-level only.

 

[Imaro]

What I'm saying is that the per X (day, encounter, round, whatever) abilities arent the only resources that the classes have to balance. The wizard, in 3rd edition terms and previously, was the very definition of your 'badly designed 30%'. You said it would be stupid to ever play the 30% you described previously.

Again, here's what you said.
How does a 3rd edition wizard NOT fit this criteria? And yet people played wizards all the time. Why? they have other means and other resources that (in theory) balance them with the other classes. I see no reason this wont continue in future editions, just with less 'per day' abilities.

How is the wizard a badly designed 30%...the wizard doesn't operate at 30% capacity, use an ability at 100% capacity and then drop back to 30%. Once again in the 3e modewl the player of the wizard decides at what rate and how much of his resources he spends in any one encounter.

In the new model it's a set rate no matter what...all of your per-encounter ansd at-will abilities will reset with every "encounter". Your per-day ability doesn't actually change your power level except in one specific encounter. Takes the question of how many resources you want to use in an encounter, compared to how much you need left for further encounters out of the players hands. I'm sorry these are two different models and there isn't a corellary here. One you decide through management of your resources over time. In the other it is a standard pre-set level of efficiency for evry encounter, with what I'll call a "power boost" that only affects one encounter .

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wyatt's latest blog entry, the link posted a few pages back on this thread, actually has some positive things to say about resource management and makes it seem like it will stay in the game. This "per-encounter only" resource system was a though experiment for me - I never thought they'd go that far but folks on this thread actually defend it. Monte Cook in his blog (also cited somewhere on this thread) also stops well short of removing daily resources entirely. In terms of what 4E will actually become (which, as I've mentioned, was not really my topic on this thread) I don't think it will be encounter-level only.

My conclusions are not based around the complete removal of daily resources. AFAICT, removing all long-term resource management (while it would have other effects I would not enjoy) would solve the problem of PCs resting to recover long-term resources completely. As long as both a benefit for resting exists, and a cost for resting does not, prudent play suggests that you rest.

Of course, as I said, time will tell.

WotC might have some other tricks up their sleeves to ameleorate the effect I predict as well (using Action Points does this to some extent, and we have been told they will be used in 4e). I suspect, however, that the problem will remain (or even get worse) because the problem is not, AFAICT, based upon what the resources actually are, but rather based upon which resources are mechanically significant, and the consequences (risk/reward factor) of recharging those resources when they are depleted.

If a risk factor to resting is re-introduced to the game, that would IMHO solve the problem.

We'll see.


RC

 

[IanArgent]

How is the wizard a badly designed 30%...the wizard doesn't operate at 30% capacity, use an ability at 100% capacity and then drop back to 30%. Once again in the 3e modewl the player of the wizard decides at what rate and how much of his resources he spends in any one encounter.

In the new model it's a set rate no matter what...all of your per-encounter ansd at-will abilities will reset with every "encounter". Your per-day ability doesn't actually change your power level except in one specific encounter. Takes the question of how many resources you want to use in an encounter, compared to how much you need left for further encounters out of the players hands. I'm sorry these are two different models and there isn't a corellary here. One you decide through management of your resources over time. In the other it is a standard pre-set level of efficiency for evry encounter, with what I'll call a "power boost" that only affects one encounter .

All of the wizard's "core competency" abilities are per-day right now. Every spellcaster is like that right now - there are encounters where you just don't use your spells because of metagame constraints; the encounter isn't "important enough" to justify using spells. That's one problem that is trying to be addressed by a mix of at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities. It's a false decision if you say "resource management is in the hands of the player now". It is, but the player doesn't have the information required to make an informed decision. The player does not have any way of knowing (short of divination magic and/or a GM who is free with informaiton) whether the encounter they are in is "worth" blowing a limited selection of per-day abilities on.

Whereas a fighter can always make the decision to use power attack, combat expertise, or what-have-you; the decision to use those abilities is only dependent on information present in the encounter. The barbarian's rage, actually, is an ability that IMHO is a "good" per-day ability. It's quite powerful, but the lack of uses does not prevent the barbarian from doing his "barbarian thing". He's still a fast, offense-over-defense melee tank even after he's used his rage for the day. The paladin's Smite Evil ability would be fine, if it was able to be applied to damage AFTER the hit is confirmed.

This is a philosophical breakpoint between the two sides, I think. IMHO, an arcane character should be able to do something arcane and effective every round. A divine character should be able to do something divine and effective every round. Martial characters can already do something martial and effective every round. Why can't arcane/divine/psionic characters?

And using a wand/scroll/potion doesn't count. Expendable magic items are just that, expendable. They don't care about resting to recharge, eventually they run out no matter how hard you work to conserve them.

 

[gizmo33]

This is a philosophical breakpoint between the two sides, I think.

Not me. I hope that wizards get per-encounter resources in 4E. My issue was with removing all per-day resources from the game, and with some of the perspectives in Wyatt's blog entry that I found strange.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, does this mean that you are laying odds that I am wrong, or laying odds that I am right, or refusing to lay odds?

Because the new D&D will be fully operational in less than a year. After a year's play (or less) I expect that same old complaint to resurface if, as Wyatt's blog implies, the change in resource management is how the designers tackled the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem. I certainly agree that the problem could be tackled in other ways; just not this way.

RC

I think the change in resource management _lessens_ the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem. As long as their is still daily resource management, there is always a chance that some careful players (or players with bad experience with overtly tough encounters thrown at them) will rest after one encounter. But that will not be the norm, and the system will not enforce early rests as strong as the current one - even if there are tough encounters.

But more importantly:
I am laying odds that you are wrong. If there are problems that your or anyone else from us detected just by looking at a few glimpses and indications of the rules, they will become obvious to the designers and developers who know all the pieces and also tested them in game, too.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am laying odds that you are wrong. If there are problems that your or anyone else from us detected just by looking at a few glimpses and indications of the rules, they will become obvious to the designers and developers who know all the pieces and also tested them in game, too.

Well, all I can say is that I hope you are right, and that if this thread has been of any help to that end, then it will have been worth it.

I do note, however, that it was the designers and developers who knew all the pieces and also tested them in game, too, that gave us this problem in the 3.X system. Of course, that was different designers and developers, so again, I hope you are right.

RC

 

[Mallus]

RC, you never did answer my question... so I'll ask it again.

Why do you think the reduced importance of resource management works for a d20 game like Mutants and Masterminds, but is problematic for D&D 4E?

The only thing I can come with relates to adventure design. D&D is pegged to the traditional dungeon crawl which in turn is pegged to the existing resource management scheme. Is that fair?

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, you never did answer my question... so I'll ask it again.

Why do you think the reduced importance of resource management works for a d20 game like Mutants and Masterminds, but is problematic for D&D 4E?

The only thing I can come with relates to adventure design.

I was waiting for JK to fork a thread on this topic.

The short form is that I feel that a game like M&M doesn't require the same type of versimilitude as a game emulating classic adventure fiction and fantasy. Of course, if you don't want D&D to emulate classic adventure fiction and fantasy, the point quickly becomes moot.


RC

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I was waiting for JK to fork a thread on this topic.

The short form is that I feel that a game like M&M doesn't require the same type of versimilitude as a game emulating classic adventure fiction and fantasy. Of course, if you don't want D&D to emulate classic adventure fiction and fantasy, the point quickly becomes moot.


RC

To me, it is simply expectations. I don't think that it's a matter of it requiring "the same type of versimilitude as a game emulating classic adventure fiction and fantasy". I've played classic adventure fiction and fantasy using Fudge, Risus, True20, d6, etc. and did not use the same types of resource management.

Those who play D&D expect (and in many cases, I assume, like) the types of resource management that exists in D&D. There is bound to be some trepidation with moving off that model and onto a different model.