Why is it so important?

[hong]

Yes but this reasoning leads us back to the "uninteresting" encounters. Using your above reasoning in the per-day model, even a group of four Goblins can become a "significant" encounter if enough resources are depleted and they are encountered later in the adventure.

But to get to that point, you still have to fight lots of groups of 4 goblins. So there are still boring fights. You cannot get away from the boring fights, unless every fight is with a BBEG.

 

[Wormwood]

Exactly, thank god that arbitrary malarkey is being ditched.

I'm sure 4th edition will support 1 or 10 encounters in a day as the story/adventure demands.

I''m not *sure*, but I'm sure as hell *hoping* so.

 

[hong]

Remeber healing/hit points are a resource...so yeah, necessarily.

No. See previous post.

And no, I do not consider "reduce variance" to equal "boring". Play enough mid- to high-level D&D and you'll quickly find that the prevalence of instakills and massive-damage brutes means there's more than enough variance for anyone.

 

[Imaro]

But to get to that point, you still have to fight lots of groups of 4 goblins. So there are still boring fights. You cannot get away from the boring fights, unless every fight is with a BBEG.

So you agree it doesn't solve the problem? Now read my example of a fix, where there is always risk yet the more encounters is supported and long term strategy is supported as well.

 

[Mallus]

Remeber healing/hit points are a resource...so yeah, necessarily.

So are Action/Hero Points... or at least they are in AE, M&M, and a host of other games, including 4E... Not to mention whatever other mechanics might exist to support a different encounter frequency model.

Imaro, I've run my game on the 'one or two encounters per session' paradigm for the three year length of my campaign,without any trouble, outside of the nasty things it does to inter-party balance (which we address by agreement and fiat).

But that doesn't mean I not looking forward to rules that more closely support my prefered style of play.

 

[hong]

So you agree it doesn't solve the problem? Now read my example of a fix, where there is always risk yet the more encounters is supported and long term strategy is supported as well.

Spell failure rolls would seem to go against the accepted practice in D&D. Still, they've killed enough sacred cows already so what's one more. In addition to that, though, I've actually used systems where you track resource depletion/refreshing over time, and I don't really see it as worth the effort. In a vid*ogame it works, but I don't like going to the effort of being a timekeeper as well as DM.

One idea I had was after every fight, you make a save or check of some sort, to see how much of your per-day resources you get back. If you roll well enough, and didn't expend too much, you might be back to full. Otherwise, you're at reduced strength for the rest of the day. This was with reference to hit points, but it could be extended to spells. Might be cumbersome with a spell slot system, though.

 

[gizmo33]

... which reminds me, I'm still waiting for evidence of the 4-encounters-per-day paradigm in fantasy literature.

There are no game paradigms in fantasy literature - unless, possibly, it's a book based on a game. An author makes up some stuff and writes it down as having happened. As closely as this matches some people's apparent gaming style, I otherwise don't see the relevance to this discussion about game mechanics.

Someone said that "heroes could fight all day without resting" in literature and movies. I asked for an example, or at least some kind of development of the argument - mostly so I could just hear the crickets chirping. Instead of crickets I got some of your non-sequiturs and synonym finding exercises. So I guess you should stop waiting, somewhere out there is a thread in need of some of your three-word enlightenment.

 

[hong]

There are no game paradigms in fantasy literature - unless, possibly, it's a book based on a game. An author makes up some stuff and writes it down as having happened. As closely as this matches some people's apparent gaming style, I otherwise don't see the relevance to this discussion about game mechanics.

So... your answer to the statement that 4-encounters-per-day doesn't model anything, is that it isn't supposed to model anything. Which is fair enough, I guess, if you ignore the elephant you just brought into the room.

Someone said that "heroes could fight all day without resting" in literature and movies.

Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Battle of Helm's Deep. Or is an 8-hour fight not long enough?

 

[Imaro]

So are Action/Hero Points... or at least they are in AE, M&M, and a host of other games, including 4E... Not to mention whatever other mechanics might exist to support a different encounter frequency model.

Yes, since they tie into the effectiveness of a character.

Imaro, I've run my game on the 'one or two encounters per session' paradigm for the three year length of my campaign,without any trouble, outside of the nasty things it does to inter-party balance (which we address by agreement and fiat).

But that doesn't mean I not looking forward to rules that more closely support my prefered style of play.

I have purchased and played SW saga ed. and I was just exspressing concerns which I ran into in that game as Iplayed it more. No it was not apparent in a read of the game, but in actual play I ran into this. Why is everyone taking this as bashinmg on 4e...on the one hand we have designer blogs where they want you to comment on your play, because it will supposedly still help them in their game design, yet any questioning or issues of what they have stated is looked at as "bashing". I rather see me and RC posting about issues we actually hope they take into account, yet when people jump in the thread claiming the problem or issue itself is wrong then you are put in a position where you have to explain it in more and more detail. Did I ever say 4e will do this...no. What I am hoping is 4e will see this and address a possible problem with a solution

I'm sorry I'm not one of the people who figure the designer's are perfect and have thought of everything(because all rpg's are perfect...right?) but I felt this issue was important enough to bring up and discuss.

 

[Raven Crowking]

on the one hand we have designer blogs where they want you to comment on your play, because it will supposedly still help them in their game design, yet any questioning or issues of what they have stated is looked at as "bashing". I rather see me and RC posting about issues we actually hope they take into account

Quoted For Truth.

If we just shut up, and then 4e comes out without taking these issues into account, we have only ourselves to blame.