Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

This leads me to conclude once again that your definition of "mechanical significance" is flawed.

If you believe so. You may be right; I may be wrong. We'll see.


RC

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Likewise with per-day/per-encounter hybrid systems, where anything that doesn't use per-day resources are the "99 lame-kobold singletons".

Nope.

In a per-day-only system, if I use up 20% of the party's resources in a combat, they can't get those back until they rest. They'll be at 80% going into the next fight.

In a per-encounter and per-day system, I can use up 80% of the party's resources in a combat, and they'll all come back before the next one. They'll be at 100% going into the next fight.

 

[pemerton]

A rebuttal doesn't require a full-fledged counter-argument; it merely requires that the argument being rebutted is shown to be wrong. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttal.

And one shows an argument to be flawed by showing that one of its premises is wrong - which requires argument - or by showing that the reasoning deployed is unsound - which requires argument.

I don't need to prove someone else guilty to defend myself; I just have to show that your evidence doesn't prove me guilty.

This requires argument (unless the evidence of guilt is so weak that it's inadequacy speaks for itself - but then there is no rebuttal, either).

I don't need to have a counter-philosophy to demonstrate the problems with a philosophical view; I need merely demonstrate the problems.

Typically by argument ie presenting reasons that support a conclusion.

You might want to take a refresher on those disciplines.

I actually teach both at a university, so my familiarity with them is fairly good.

 

[pemerton]

mechanical threshold of significance must take into account the fact that it is an encounter in which resources are expended, and whether or not the expenditure of resources within the context of any given encounter has significant mechanical impact upon the outcome of that particular encounter and the PCs' abilities to further continue in it.

<snip>

The optimal solution is to assume that within the fundamental unit of the challenge, the encounter itself, the PCs are on equal footing, and that the crux of managing resources makes that encounter fun.

Excellent post. The bits I've quoted above are the clearest statements of the point I've been trying to make at least since post #1001, which gave an example (however imperfect) to try to illustrate how a suite of abilities mixing per-encounter and per-day might be designed to facilitate this sort of play.

 

[pemerton]

Overall, I think that the game works best when the players have a greater level of control over their actions (i.e., when their choices are more rather than less meaningful).

I don't dispute that. There are, of course, different conceptions of meaningulness (not unlike thresholds of significance!). Even if we are confining ourselves, here, to "mechanically meaningful" we can distinguish between tactical meaningfulness, which I think the designers are trying to increase in 4e, and operational meaningfulness, which I think will decrease.

Because I didn't respond to your post #1001 doesn't mean that there was anything in that post that required response.

Given that (1) You have resources, and (2) that there is no consequence for using those resources, it is always prudent to use your strongest resources first.

I'm mostly interested in your opinion of the example I sketched in my post. The point of that example was to try to indicate how per-day resources can both be useful, but not necessarily the most rational first response to an encounter. For example, a "second wind" ability is very useful, but one would not use it at the start of an encounter, because one would still be at or near full hit points at that point. Likewise, a "teleport the party" or "heal all allies" ability is not one with which one would open.

I also would dispute your claim that there is no consequence to using per-day resources. Assuming that they are not free actions, the consequence will be loss of an action in the round. Depending on the details of those per-day abilities, and their interaction with per-encounter abilties and the range of typical tactical situations, it may be quite common that leading with per-day resources is not rational even in an encounter that is obviously a dangerous one.

No wonder you believe that you've "shown there to be errors in [my] reasoning" since you fail both to address it or, by your own admission, quoted above, understand it.

I think I have addressed your reasoning. I have tried to give examples in which per-encounter and per-day resources are both available, and even though the encounter is challenging it is not rational to lead with one's per-day resources. The examples depend on the details (both in consequence, and activation cost) of the resources in question.

You continue to assert, at a purely general level, "In a dangerous situation rational players will always lead with their characters' most powerful (ie typically per-day) abilities" without considering, in detail, for particular suites of abilities, whether this is likely to be true or not. It is because of your focus purely on the generality, without looking at the details, that I had supposed you to think there could be no interesting tactical questions about the deployment of per-encounter resources.

Once one allows that such tactical questions can arise, and that they interact with the deployment of per-day abilities, it becomes (in my view) failry easy to envision suites of abilities which will not result in the rational choice always being to lead from the per-day abilities.

Per-day resources can easily handle any level of encounter frequency, by varying the intensity of the encounters. Per-encounter resources can easily handle any level of encounter frequency, by varying the intensity of encounters.

<snip>

Hybrid systems, such as that proposed by 4e, can have only a limited number of significant encounters per day due to the inclusion of resource attrition, while narrowing the range of significant encounters due to the "bar" set by per-encounter abilities. The actual result is that of fewer significant encounters per day being possible than with a per-day system (or a pure per-encounter system, obviously).

This is an illustration of what I mean by putting your view forward in a purely general fashion. You appear to be treating the encounter as purely a case of the players deploying the resources against the monsters, with the amount deployed being equal to E + D (until D runs out), then stuck at E.

If this were so, then you would be correct. My contention is that it is not so, and in particular that what the per-encounter system will endeavour to do will be to generate mechanical significance (but not in your sense of that term in earlier posts) by making the manner of deployment of E interesting and challenging (for example, by giving characters abilities with diverse trigger conditions and activation costs). Furthermore, I think it will make the deployment of E interact interestingly with the deployment of D (again, in terms of trigger conditions and activation costs).

This is a type of mechanical significance that a pure per-day model cannot deliver to the same degree (unless the uses per day are increased to a practically unlimited degree - maybe some 3.5 sorcerers fit this model), because a pure per-day model is not one in which a resource is deployed every round.

Thus, I do not agree with you when you say that "Clearly, if you are having an encounter, and have resources in that encounter, the way you use the resources can be tactically interesting. There is no difference in this between the per-encounter and resource attrition paradigm." In a system which mixes per-encounter and per-day a mechanically and tactically meaningful choice of which resource to deploy (as opposed to whether or not to deploy a resource) gets made every round.

mechanical thesholds of significance can be examined using mathematics, and there the numbers are against you.

But the mathematics is not simply R = E + D. One has to take account of questions to do with trigger conditions, activation costs and the consequences of resource deployment. I think the question at hand - that is, can an introduction of per-encounter resources resolve the 15 minute adventuring day issue by allowing for a larger number of mechanically interesting encounters to occur without rest being required - cannot be answered without thinking in detail about particular suites of character abilities, and the typical range of encounters they are to be used in.

Otherwise, yes, you can have any number of encounters in a per-encounter system that may be significant using non-mechanical thresholds of significance. As I said earlier.

Does this mean that you agree that a move to incorporate per-encounter resources will remove certain obstacles to some playstyles that purely per-day resources give rise to?

 

[Jackelope King]

Excellent post. The bits I've quoted above are the clearest statements of the point I've been trying to make at least since post #1001, which gave an example (however imperfect) to try to illustrate how a suite of abilities mixing per-encounter and per-day might be designed to facilitate this sort of play.

Thanks. I think you raise a good point as well on the expenditure of resources, specifically that some powerful abilities (especially the likes teleport) simply do not make sense if they're used at the beginning of all but the most dangerous of encounters.

On the issue of nova-ing in particular, a very good analysis came up for it back after the release of the XPH on the Wizards of the Coast Psionics boards. The argument essentially pointed out that making your default setting "nova" (ie always using your most powerful, most damaging and most costly abilities first) has a poor cost-benefit ratio. The goal of fighting any particular enemy is to incapacitate that enemy with the smallest net loss in resources (ideally making a net gain from the treasure that the enemy drops). If you don't hit hard enough, you risk suffering HP damage in return from your enemy. You want to drop the enemy in the fewest number of rounds to avoid being dropped yourself.

However, there's no real functional difference between an enemy at -1 HP and -1,000,000,000 HP, so far as an adventuring PC is concerned. The only question is whether or not the enemy is in good enough condition to remain a threat.

So it's essentially a question of whether or not you'd be willing to use a firehose to fill your drinking glass, or if it'd be more efficient (cost-wise) to just use the faucet in the kitchen. Both will fill it, but 99% of what you used from the firehose will be wasted. It's often not worth the "wasted" resources to do it fast, unless the cost to regain the hit points you'll lose in the fight is greater than the cost to go nova. And from what we've heard about 4e so far with healing apparently being a more common thing, it sounds like it'll be cheaper to heal than it will be to use one of your handful of per-day abilities.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In a per-day-only system, if I use up 20% of the party's resources in a combat, they can't get those back until they rest. They'll be at 80% going into the next fight.

In a per-encounter and per-day system, I can use up 80% of the party's resources in a combat, and they'll all come back before the next one. They'll be at 100% going into the next fight.

If you believe so, we shall see.

However, per my analysis, this is exactly why the 80% resource fight is as insignificant as the kobolds re: mechanical threshold of significance.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And one shows an argument to be flawed by showing that one of its premises is wrong - which requires argument - or by showing that the reasoning deployed is unsound - which requires argument.

A full-fledged argument is one which is, presumably, well-thought out, reasoned, and draws definite conclusions. A rebuttal requires merely the statement that "I don't believe your premise X to be true". IOW, "You have not met the burden of proof threshold I require".

You may consider this an argument; certainly 90% of the rebuttal "arguments" I have seen levelled against me on this thread are nothing more.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm mostly interested in your opinion of the example I sketched in my post. The point of that example was to try to indicate how per-day resources can both be useful, but not necessarily the most rational first response to an encounter. For example, a "second wind" ability is very useful, but one would not use it at the start of an encounter, because one would still be at or near full hit points at that point. Likewise, a "teleport the party" or "heal all allies" ability is not one with which one would open.

(1) Again, it doesn't matter which round you use your abilities in; merely that you either use them or do not. Either an opponent is one who damages you enough where using "second wind" becomes prudent, or he is not. If he is, the fight passes the mechanical threshold of significance. If he is not, players will soon realize that these fights are mechanically meaningless. Unless the average DM uses a theshold of significance other then the mechanical, this means that in the average game these fights are meaningless.

(2) I will readily agree that any per-day ability that has no relevance to 90% of the game need not be considered. For example, a "pick your nose" per-day ability has no bearing on how resources are used.

(3) Before I begin answering a case-by-case "What if X?", "What if Y?" I would prefer if, having read what is already written about the topic, you can demonstrate that there is any point to answering them.

I also would dispute your claim that there is no consequence to using per-day resources.

For someone who is well versed in logic and philosophy, you seem at a loss when confronted by an IF/THEN statement.

My claim is not that there is no consequence to using per-day resources, my claim in that there must be one for prudence to not use per-day resources in any mechanically significant encounter.....or, for that matter, in most encounters where winning is significant due to other thresholds of significance.

Again, IF there is no risk/reward consideration involved THEN it is always prudent to use your best resources in any given encounter.

I think I have addressed your reasoning.

I appreciate your attempts to do so, but I think that, based upon your responses, you fail to grasp what I am saying. This may well be my fault. Perhaps I am not being clear enough. Way back upthread I tried to start a Q&A method of explaining what I was saying, bringing it into the simplest possible terms I could think of.

Again, it doesn't matter whether or not one leads the encounter with one's per-day resources (as I have said or tried to say multiple times in multiple posts), only that an encounter is or is not challenging enough to make a party use their per-day resources, and that there is or is not a cost/risk associated with doing so.

BTW, I have said, repeatedly, that ensuring that tehre is a cost/risk associated with doing so is one obvious method of dealing with the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem. In 1e, there were the following obvious costs/risks associated with using resources:

(1) Some resources were intrinsically hazardous to use. This includes spells that age you, System Shock, and the way potions mixed if you attempted to use two at once.

(2) Wandering monsters were intended to create a time constraint. If you sat around camping, or spent too much time searching an area, you ran a risk of encountering something else that might sap (or overwhelm!) your resources.

(3) Limitations to what one can do within a round. You can attack or cast a healing spell, for example.

Well, we know that 3.X gutted (1) from the game, with very few exceptions. Those sort of cost/risk assessments were apparently "unfun". We know that the WotC site has run an adventure design article, widely discussed on this forum at one time, about cutting (2) from games because, again, they are "unfun". We also know that 4e is designed to ensure that you can attack while, say, healing your companions because the types of decisions required by (3) are "unfun".

I realize that I am somehow not being clear enough, and that what seems blatantly obvious to me will still seem hazy and unclear. I apologize in advance. I am doing my best.

Otherwise, yes, you can have any number of encounters in a per-encounter system that may be significant using non-mechanical thresholds of significance. As I said earlier.

Does this mean that you agree that a move to incorporate per-encounter resources will remove certain obstacles to some playstyles that purely per-day resources give rise to?

My reply should read "Go back and read what I've already written on this".

Or it should read "Based on what I've written, the answer should be obvious."

Instead it will say: "No. You can have any number of encounters in any system that may be significant using non-mechanical thresholds of significance, because you need not take the mechanics into account. Thus per-day resources don't give rise to this problem, nor do per-encounter abilities cause this problem, nor does any mechanical system."


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

On the issue of nova-ing in particular, a very good analysis came up for it back after the release of the XPH on the Wizards of the Coast Psionics boards. The argument essentially pointed out that making your default setting "nova" (ie always using your most powerful, most damaging and most costly abilities first) has a poor cost-benefit ratio. The goal of fighting any particular enemy is to incapacitate that enemy with the smallest net loss in resources (ideally making a net gain from the treasure that the enemy drops). If you don't hit hard enough, you risk suffering HP damage in return from your enemy. You want to drop the enemy in the fewest number of rounds to avoid being dropped yourself.

However, there's no real functional difference between an enemy at -1 HP and -1,000,000,000 HP, so far as an adventuring PC is concerned. The only question is whether or not the enemy is in good enough condition to remain a threat.

So it's essentially a question of whether or not you'd be willing to use a firehose to fill your drinking glass, or if it'd be more efficient (cost-wise) to just use the faucet in the kitchen. Both will fill it, but 99% of what you used from the firehose will be wasted.

This is only true if the resources used are "wasted". If there is no cost/risk associated with using the firehose (which is not the case in real life), then the firehose is faster. If there is no cost/risk involved in bringing your enemy to -1,000,000,000 HP, and there is a cost/risk associated with bringing an enemy to -1 HP (If you don't hit hard enough, you risk suffering HP damage in return from your enemy. You want to drop the enemy in the fewest number of rounds to avoid being dropped yourself), then prudence suggests overkill rather than underkill every time.

BTW, I have said, repeatedly, that ensuring that there is a cost/risk associated with using important abilities is one obvious method of dealing with the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem. In 1e, there were the following obvious costs/risks associated with using resources:

(1) Some resources were intrinsically hazardous to use. This includes spells that age you, System Shock, and the way potions mixed if you attempted to use two at once.

(2) Wandering monsters were intended to create a time constraint. If you sat around camping, or spent too much time searching an area, you ran a risk of encountering something else that might sap (or overwhelm!) your resources.

(3) Limitations to what one can do within a round. You can attack or cast a healing spell, for example.

Well, we know that 3.X gutted (1) from the game, with very few exceptions. Those sort of cost/risk assessments were apparently "unfun". We know that the WotC site has run an adventure design article, widely discussed on this forum at one time, about cutting (2) from games because, again, they are "unfun". We also know that 4e is designed to ensure that you can attack while, say, healing your companions because the types of decisions required by (3) are "unfun".

It is the costs/risks associated with any given choice that make moderation a worthwhile option. Most players are smart enough to know that when making tactical decisions, even if, like the designers, they are not cognizant of why the game is becoming less fun, and fall under the mistaken belief that going further down the road of "no/reduced costs/risks" will somehow alleviate the problems that walking down that road has caused.


RC