Why is it so important?

[pemerton]

Could have been done under the current system. For those who are comfortable with other thresholds of significance, this problem already doesn't exist. Therefore it is unlikely that this is going to prevent the problem.

For those who do not engage in prudent play, this problem already doesn't exist. Therefore, this is unlikely to prevent the problem.

So, yes, if you do not have this problem now because you use other thesholds of significance or because you have players who do not engage in prudent play, 4.0 might well allow you to carry on carrying on. If you have this problem now, per-encounter resources aren't going to solve it.

Is there are reason you are not considering the possibility that per-day may be an obstacle to play which relies on other thresholds of significance, or which is not prudent, and that per-encounter might eliminate this obstacle?

Some folks feel that the resource management issue actually gets in the way of other aspects of the game that they enjoy. Some don't. I think this is basically what the debate has revolved around.

I will quibble with your choice of verb ("feel"). It has, I believe, been demonstrated that per-encounter removes certain obstacles to non-operational styles of play. You agreed in an earlier post that this was not an absurd design goal. Whether or not it is a desirable one depends on one's desired play style. I have already noted that 4e, like 3E before it, is moving away from support for the 1st ed approach to play.

Yeah, this is pretty much my point. In the current system, when the PCs rest is determined by when they run low on resources.

In most literature when the heroes rest is based on when it is appropriate for the story.

<snip>

I see this type of play modeled well with a per encounter system. Players rest when there is a break in the action rather than when the numbers on their character sheet run low.

Agreed.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Versimilitude will always interfere with the story at various times - the critical hit rule could very well fell a PC at a moment otherwise unsuited to the narrative. There's nothing wrong with that as long as the expectations are made explicit. Though I'm not sure why, according to your expressed priorities, you would bother to use dice at all to resolve events since they would potentially interfere with the story if the numbers were too wacky. I suppose if the dice were used to choose an event from a list of "story-appropriate" events, then that would work.

That's actually really funny if you knew me. Someone once suggested a diceless system and I couldn't even fathom playing like that. Dice are important to me and you'll take them away from me when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

I try to avoid detailed narratives for the exact reason you state. I learned my lesson when I tried making on PC a "chosen one" who I needed to stick around for the whole plot of the game from beginning to end to make work and realized I had to find ways to bring him back to life over and over again and to have enemies purposefully avoid HIM with their attacks to avoid killing him again.

I prefer dealing with plots at a macro level. The plot is "The evil wizard is kidnapping people and transforming them into an army of monsters. The PCs are asked to investigate the disappearances. The wizard is going to perform a ritual in 2 days to transform them all. The PCs must stop him. When the PCs stop him, one of the prisoners tells them that the wizard mentioned an ally in another country who was working with him. That will lead into the next adventure." That plot works no matter how many PCs die, no matter what characters everyone in the group plays. If one character dies, I can just have another one show up (amazingly enough) shortly after to replace him.

Having the risk of death adds tension and believability to the game, but it doesn't cause the game to come to a grinding halt. The character can either be replaced almost right away or brought back to life with a spell an hour later. A TPK will cause the game to basically end. The PCs failing to stop the wizard in time will cause the next adventure to be derailed and I'll have to replan out the game. It also has the disadvantage of making the players feel unheroic.

 

[pemerton]

Win/lose encounters (in this case, those with the threat of mechanical significance, where anly loss of mechanical resources is perforce a significant one) make the problem worse, not better.

Could you elaborate?

It seems to me that we may be using "threat" in different senses. What I had in mind was an encounter in which, during any given round, the players are not confident that the use of per-day resource will not be required to succeed at the encounter - but which, through effective tactical play, ends up being won without the use of such resources.

Such an encounter would be interesting without altering the balance of resources. It is therefore a counter-example to your assertion that encounters which do not either deplete or add to resources are uninteresting.

Basically, I find that my players would prefer to know that they are near invincible(like they had a 5% chance of dying each encounter). But only because they know what they are doing and they are making the right decisions. They know if they make the wrong decisions that they had a real chance of dying(like 50% chance).

This is precisely the sort of thing I have in mind by a "threat of mechanical significance".

 

[hong]

There are no hitpoints in novels.

And this is relevant because...?

I just said tired because there is a correlation between the tired concept in novels and the hitpoints concept in DnD. The example that RC gives from the Mars books IMO is a pretty good example of what DnD means by the concept of hitpoints.

Contrary to popular belief, hit points are not the sum total of resources.

Remember, this conversation started with a claim by a poster that blinked in and said that heroes being able to fight all day without rest or consideration for resources was common in novels and movies.

And it is. The fact that there are OTHER novels and movies that make a point of showing people getting tired doesn't change that.

This is an example of why I said that the "4 encounters per day" thing was misleading. In order to translate that into novel/movie terms, you'd have to know something about the APL and CRs you're dealing with. In the one example we talked about, I could suggest rough values for Gimli vs. the orcs. But as far as finding exactly 4 per day - first of all that doesn't happen in DnD because of the variables. Secondly, it would be hard to seek it out in a novel because of the uncertainty of translation between the two systems.

Exactly. So why have a formula in the first place?

But that uncertainty also makes it possible that the number of orcs that Gimli and Legolas killed during a battle was *exactly* equal to 4 encounters of APL=EL.

Everything is possible. Some things are more probable than others. Trust me, I'm a statistician.

It's sufficient to show existence - the example was not chosen for popularity.

Relevance might also be useful. For all practical purposes, Vance is irrelevant except when it comes to D&D, so pointing to him is equivalent to saying that D&D models itself.

On the subject of popularity: We've analyzed the subject of "magic in novels" before. There are relatively few instances where stories attempt to present the "magic system" of their world in any degree of detail that would be suitable for a roleplaying game.

IOW, you admit that 4-encounters-per-day models nothing except itself.

Remember, the magic system is something that players have to understand well enough to make meaningful decisions in. Or, at least IMO, you can't have a magic system that runs off of DM fiat.

And this is relevant to 4-encounters-per-day because...?

In all of your examples the DM is forcing important strategic choices on to the players (which may be an acceptable part of that gaming style).

Nonsense. If per-day balancing becomes unnecessary or of lesser importance, then the DM is forcing a minor flavour choice on the players.

What source material? Helm's Deep? I don't know what "distort the functionality of the ruleset" means.

Yes, I've noticed. Game balance, you know the concept, yes?

The novels aren't going to use game terminology so it's a matter of imprecise translation. In any case, I was starting off answering a rather hyperbolic attack of "ludicrous" to my burden of explanation wasn't that high. If you want me to now make the case that there is an interpretation of a bulk of fantasy literature that *mandates* a resource system like the one that 3E uses, that's tougher.

Exactly.

 

[hong]

The example is sufficient to show a case in literature where the limitations of the heroes ability to continue with an adventure are coming in to play.

The example says nothing of the substantive issue under discussion, namely the impact of per-encounter balancing on resources OTHER than basic physical endurance (ie, hit points).

Here the hero is clearly going to have to rest, even though his "player" might prefer to carry on with adventure, killing Darth Vader, Sauron, and Thulsa Doom before breaking for lunch (then again food is one of those annoying resource details that 4E could probably dispense with).

Contrary to popular belief, hit points are not the sum total of resources.

 

[hong]

How I wish you felt that were true....

You lovely devil you, I knew you weren't ignoring me.

 

[gizmo33]

1> And this is relevant because...?
2> Contrary to popular belief, hit points are not the sum total of resources.
3> And it is. The fact that there are OTHER novels and movies that make a point of showing people getting tired doesn't change that.
4> Exactly. So why have a formula in the first place?
5> Everything is possible. Some things are more probable than others. Trust me, I'm a statistician.
6> Relevance might also be useful. For all practical purposes, Vance is irrelevant except when it comes to D&D, so pointing to him is equivalent to saying that D&D models itself.
7> IOW, you admit that 4-encounters-per-day models nothing except itself.
8> And this is relevant to 4-encounters-per-day because...?
9> Nonsense. If per-day balancing becomes unnecessary or of lesser importance, then the DM is forcing a minor flavour choice on the players.
10> Yes, I've noticed. Game balance, you know the concept, yes?
11> Exactly.

1. Because we were talking about novels and you mentioned hitpoints.
2. Neither is oxygen. That's not really interesting.
3. "Other" novels and movies? There's an implication there that *a* novel or movie supports the original assertion. Still Helm's Deep do you think?
4. What formula? Seriously, a guideline is not a formula. An estimate is not a formula. Telling me that my car gets 30 mpg is not a formula. The word has connotations here that are misleading IMO. The guideline is there for planning adventures. Is DnD a literature simulator in the way you use it?
5. Glad we agree. (Except the part about trusting a statistician.)
6. I thought you were a statistician? Vance is not irrelevant except that you say so, otherwise there's no point either way. Find a magic system in a novel that you like and include it at the end of your so-far-nonexistent movie or novel that shows a hero fighting all day without resting (and I don't mean fighting the case of the "blahs" or fighting to regain his dignity or something else clever. I mean a definition of fighting that would relate to the DnD resource issue.)
7. That my car gets 30 mpg models nothing either. The idea that this is suppose to model something is a little strange. The features of the game that create the 4-per-day limit (hitpoints and the various other constructs that serve as resources) are the things that are doing the modelling. I suppose you could say that the overall resource issue, and the limitation that it places on the PCs is "modelling" some kind of fatigue.
8. We've been told repeatedly that there are important plot line considerations that being forced to rest *by the ruleset* is getting in the way of. I suppose when the DM is the one doing the forcing then it's ok. And this isn't a railroad situation, because somebody on this thread has argued that their players choose the significant plot elements. (As an aside-AFAICT you overuse the word "nonsense", without really using the word for what it means. It's not a scholarly version of "I disagree", it actually means something else.)
9. My lack of understanding is something your synonym technique is so far not fixing. (BTW- the term "game balance" is a little imprecise, if there is a particular aspect of the game that you're talking about balancing then it would help to be more explicit.)
10. I accept your apology, the mistake is understandable considering your overuse of the word ludicrous.

 

[gizmo33]

The example says nothing of the substantive issue under discussion, namely the impact of per-encounter balancing on resources OTHER than basic physical endurance (ie, hit points).

When did you slide the "other than physical endurance" part of it in there? Oh well, I guess we'll start off with the same steps - you should be familiar with by now. Give us at least one example, perhaps outline a generalization of a magic system that you think applies to a bulk of fantasy literature, and then outline the differences between it and the DnD magic system if they're not obvious.

Or just make some outlandish statment, don't substantiate it, and call everyone else's ideas ludicrous. Then duck the issue for a few dozen posts. That's what I call plan B.

Contrary to popular belief, hit points are not the sum total of resources.

I hear rumors they're not even part of what we've been talking about this whole time. And there's this wacky suggestion that no one ever ran out of spells at Helm's Deep.

 

[hong]

1. Because we were talking about novels and you mentioned hitpoints.

To be precise, you mentioned people getting tired, so like the fool I was, I assumed you were talking about physical endurance, for which the closest analog in the D&D ruleset is hit points. That will teach me to make assumptions.

2. Neither is oxygen. That's not really interesting.

... because oxygen is not a depletable resource in D&D. Unlike certain other things, in addition to hit points. This is not hard.

3. "Other" novels and movies? There's an implication there that *a* novel or movie supports the original assertion. Still Helm's Deep do you think?

No.

4. What formula?

4 encounters per day.

Seriously, a guideline is not a formula. An estimate is not a formula. Telling me that my car gets 30 mpg is not a formula. The word has connotations here that are misleading IMO.

Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it's misleading.

The guideline is there for planning adventures.

Yes. A pointless guideline, unless one wants to play ASL.

Is DnD a literature simulator in the way you use it?

Is D&D an Advanced Squad Leader simulator in the way you use it?

5. Glad we agree. (Except the part about trusting a statistician.)

See, if you had trusted a statistician, you wouldn't be misled into thinking that all things are possible means all things are probable.

6. I thought you were a statistician? Vance is not irrelevant except that you say so, otherwise there's no point either way.

Vance is irrelevant because that is what D&D sets out to model (and it doesn't even do that very well), thus pointing to him just means D&D models itself. Cf circularity.

Find a magic system in a novel that you like and include it at the end of your so-far-nonexistent movie or novel that shows a hero fighting all day without resting (and I don't mean fighting the case of the "blahs" or fighting to regain his dignity or something else clever. I mean a definition of fighting that would relate to the DnD resource issue.)

So... you want an example of someone fighting all day and depleting resources, although the point of depleting resources is to avoid fighting all day. Cute.

7. That my car gets 30 mpg models nothing either. The idea that this is suppose to model something is a little strange. The features of the game that create the 4-per-day limit (hitpoints and the various other constructs that serve as resources) are the things that are doing the modelling. I suppose you could say that the overall resource issue, and the limitation that it places on the PCs is "modelling" some kind of fatigue.

I am glad that you have managed to deduce for yourself something that has been obvious to everyone else debating this issue for the last several years. Very good. Now find me an example of something that 4-encounters-per-day models.

8. We've been told repeatedly that there are important plot line considerations that being forced to rest *by the ruleset* is getting in the way of. I suppose when the DM is the one doing the forcing then it's ok. And this isn't a railroad situation, because somebody on this thread has argued that their players choose the significant plot elements.

No, no, no.

For the Nth time. With per-encounter balancing, the DM is the one who tells the PCs when to stop. The PCs are the ones who decide how long to keep going. If they so desire, they can keep going forever, without artificial considerations like having exhausted their per-day resources to worry about. The only "forcing" is if the PCs want to keep going but the DM doesn't want them to, and even if this happens, there are no resource management considerations for the players to worry about (at least by default). Thus from the resource-depletion point of view, whether they do the entire dungeon today, or 50% today and the other 50% tomorrow, is entirely immaterial.

This is entirely different to the DM wanting the PCs to keep going, and having to force them to do so because it would be otherwise prudent to camp. Now it becomes a significant issue whether you do the entire dungeon today, or 50% today and 50% tomorrow. In one, the narrative flow of events happens as a natural consequence; in the other, it requires active DM management. (I know of precious few reasons why a narrative should _require_ you to do half the dungeon today, and the other half tomorrow.)

Is that enough syllables for you?

(As an aside-AFAICT you overuse the word "nonsense", without really using the word for what it means. It's not a scholarly version of "I disagree", it actually means something else.)

Yes. It means "nonsense".

9. My lack of understanding is something your synonym technique is so far not fixing.

It's not a synonym.

(BTW- the term "game balance" is a little imprecise, if there is a particular aspect of the game that you're talking about balancing then it would help to be more explicit.)

Search for the term "nova". Or perhaps "psion", for the most egregious examples of nova-ing.

10. I accept your apology, the mistake is understandable considering your overuse of the word ludicrous.

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

 

[hong]

When did you slide the "other than physical endurance" part of it in there?

Because I foolishly thought it should have been obvious from the start, given how most of the debate has been around spellcasting, but not to worry, I've now been disabused of that notion.

Oh well, I guess we'll start off with the same steps - you should be familiar with by now. Give us at least one example, perhaps outline a generalization of a magic system that you think applies to a bulk of fantasy literature, and then outline the differences between it and the DnD magic system if they're not obvious.

No, no. You point out examples in the source material that the D&D magic system models, with specific regard to the depleting-resources-per-day paradigm. As said before, I've failed to find any (as said before, Vance hardly counts), so maybe you can do better than me.

Or just make some outlandish statment, don't substantiate it, and call everyone else's ideas ludicrous. Then duck the issue for a few dozen posts. That's what I call plan B.

Yes, you're doing very well at it so far.

I hear rumors they're not even part of what we've been talking about this whole time. And there's this wacky suggestion that no one ever ran out of spells at Helm's Deep.

Prove that they did.