Why is it so important?

[gizmo33]

It might also be dispelled.

In which case I'll sit around for 1 minute after the battle and then recast it. Or, the fly spell is a daily resource in which case I'm going to go outside and camp so that I can regain it, which according to some of you is all kinds of unfun.

Note though: I actually would prefer 4E to have a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources for all classes, so once these examples move into this area I don't have an issue.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

In which case I'll sit around for 1 minute after the battle and then recast it. Or, the fly spell is a daily resource in which case I'm going to go outside and camp so that I can regain it, which according to some of you is all kinds of unfun.

This is assuming that there isn't one of those aforementioned time constraints (either the "you have 10 minutes" variety or of the "you have six hours" variety). This may or may not be the case.

If you have no time limit then there likely isn't anything stopping you from regaining your spells. If there is a time limit and you lose a mission-critical spell (and all the backups of said spell somehow) the group had better start thinking fast.

 

[shilsen]

Note though: I actually would prefer 4E to have a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources for all classes, so once these examples move into this area I don't have an issue.

From what has been released so far by WotC about spellcasters in 4e, it sounds to me that a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources is precisely what they'll have.

 

[gizmo33]

This is assuming that there isn't one of those aforementioned time constraints (either the "you have 10 minutes" variety or of the "you have six hours" variety). This may or may not be the case.

True, but a one-minute rest time for a 6 hour time constraint is not very significant AFAICT. Basically, when you combine the factors in such a way that this works out, then it starts to look pretty contrived by my particular design standards. Clearly if your players are used to this sort of thing then it's not as much of a problem for your game. The general ideas I get from what's being described here goes back to the "villager on the sacrificial altar" example. (Suggestions by some of deficiency in my imagination, while pithy and insulting, are so far not convincing.)

Ultimately, I'm not trying to argue that there are *no* examples of "encounter contexts" that would work in my game. As I said earlier, I already essentially have an "encounter-only resource" situation for overland travel. So I'm familiar with designing ways of making an encounter interesting when you don't want to increase the deadliness and you don't have long-term resource issues to consider.

However, I just find this to be a narrower range of possibilities. As I've said before, it just seems basically logical to me that "encounter+longterm > encounter" in terms of design possibilities. After all, a per-day resources design *includes* all possible per-encounter resources as well. What I'm basically dreading is a new system that turns all of my encounters into a version of my overland encounters, and forces me to increase the contrived/arbitrary natures of the encounters to keep in interesting. Such a thing might suit certain gaming styles but it's not a pleasant prospect due to my preferences.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

True, but a one-minute rest time for a 6 hour time constraint is not very significant AFAICT.

(I had the 6-hour one as an "anti-camp for 8 hours and rememorize" situation.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd agree, while noting that all of these terms rely heavily on the user. For example, if someone includes "entertaining" under the category of "meaningful," then a group of high-level PCs reveling in their power as they kick the snot out of a bunch of mooks who could never challenge them is "meaningful" too.

Agreed. And in other threads, I've said the exact same thing.

Having DMed and run multiple PCs in a system using per-encounter and per-day abilities, and in a system (M&M) with always usable abilities, I have to say that I think James Wyatt is bang on target on this subject. When I and/or the players/PCs want to have multiple encounters in a day, it's been significantly easier to do so with a mix of per-encounter and per-day abilities.

Here's the problem as I see it:

I am currently running a heavily modified version of 3.x with per-day and per-encounter abilities. I was previously running a lightly modified version of 3.0. Under neither of these systems did I experience the 15-minute adventuring day problem for the simple reason that, when the characters decided to rest, the world went on.

But I would be foolish to claim that, because I didn't have a "15-minute adventuring day" problem, that the problem didn't exist. Nor is my ability to easily run games without this problem in 3.0 evidence that 3.0 solves this problem. While I am continually reading "I run X without this problem" as proof that the system in X solved the problem, if I believed that line of reasoning I would also have to conclude that the system presented in 3.0 solved the problem.

Clearly, this is untrue. It therefore follows that "Person Y can run System X without Problem Z" is not evidence that System X solves Problem Z.

Moreover, if "Person Y can run System X without Problem Z" and "Person A cannot run System X without Problem Z", then I conclude that it is likely that the problem does not exist because of System X, but rather because of some difference as to the way Person Y and Person A approach the use of System X.

True. Unlike you, however, I think WotC has determined (1) on the subject of the 15 minute adventuring day and is seeking to achieve (2) in a reasonable way, though naturally I can't be certain about (2) till I actually see 4e.

Whereas, I think that WotC believes that they have determined (1), but I am not convinced that they have done so because (a) their statements seem to imply that they believe that Problem Z is a function of System X, which I know through my own experience to be untrue, (b) without fail, in every single case where a person has posted to EN World seeking help with resolving Problem Z, the resulting advice has been that the person apply a cost to resting/resetting, (c) my own analysis of the problem concurs that the problem results from a lack of "risk vs. reward" balance hinged on resting and resetting, and (d) as people support ways to use the new System B to solve Problem Z, they continually resort to using a "risk vs. reward" balance hinged on resting and resetting.

Moreover, if it is true that "If the wizard (or insert Class X) has enough wizardy things to do every round, he will not use up his best wizardy resources as quickly, and consequently will not cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem" then the converse would also be true: "If the wizard (or insert Class X) has fewer wizardy things to do, he will use up his best wizardy resources more quickly, and consequently will be more likely to cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem".

IOW, if this was true, the 15-minute adventuring day problem would be an artifact of earlier editions, that was made less common by 3e. This is not my experience, or the experience of anyone that I know. I have played D&D since Christmas day 1979, with the Blue Box set, with hundreds of people in several states, and in two countries. In no case, whether I or another was DMing, have I ever heard of the "15-minute adventuring day" problem, or simular, until 3.0.

I cannot help but conclude that "If the wizard (or insert Class X) has enough wizardy things to do every round, he will not use up his best wizardy resources as quickly, and consequently will not cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem" cannot, in general, be true. I do, however, believe that it is what WotC believes to be true.

System B may be more satisfying than System X for many reasons, depending upon playstyle preferences and what you want from a game. However, "Abilities might reset, but the world doesn't" is (IMHO & IME) far closer to resolving Problem Z for those who have it than is switching to System B.

Worse, my analysis indicates to me that using the type of approach that causes Problem Z with System X is likely to cause even greater problems with System B.

 

[gizmo33]

From what has been released so far by WotC about spellcasters in 4e, it sounds to me that a mix of per-encounter and per-day resources is precisely what they'll have.

That is what I hope. This current thought experiment/debate of "what's wrong with an all per-encounter resources design" came about due to the somewhat peculiar history of this thread. IMO though, it was worth discussing because many people's objections to the current resource design in 3E sounded like they were advocating an all per-encounter resources design, even though it would be irrelevant in the case that this discussion were about actual 4E only, and not about possible resource designs for adventure games.

 

[gizmo33]

Whereas, I think that WotC believes that they have determined (1), but I am not convinced that they have done so because (a) their statements seem to imply that they believe that Problem Z is a function of System X, which I know through my own experience to be untrue,

On this subject, I would ask everyone to read the designers notes in a certain way. It's usually pretty obvious when they are discussing actual experience and when they are discussing the consequences of hypothetical designs. It's one thing to say "I played a warlock in WoW and I was bored" (to innacurrately paraphrase, but you get the idea), and another thing to say "if I let warlocks cast my new fershizzle spell, everything will be great". The former is a statement of experience and much more objective than the latter. The latter requires some "heavy lifting" in terms of logic and reasoning and I don't think the designers are always either prepared or willing to get into these details. But without those details, I (and RC and others probably) read these things, contrast them with our own experiences, and start to think that something perhaps has gone wrong.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

the 15 minute adventuring day problem happens because you use your best (wizardly) resources very quickly, and then need to rest to recover them​

Yes, that's pretty much true. Except, I wouldn't use "your best" resources and more "too many" resources. Even if you have some of your best resources left, it doesn't mean you have ENOUGH resources to continue, so you rest.

Why do you use your best resources first? Presumably because you want to do something "wizardy" every round, and

your remaining resources don't feel "wizardy" to you.​

This is where I disagree. The problem as described by Wyatt is that is is possible to run a game where people don't rest after every combat. However, to do this one needs to run combats where each one doesn't use up too many resources so that the party feels "safe" enough to continue. However, to do this you need to have an encounter where you can cast, for instance, 2 fireballs(when you are level 7) and it's over. You likely have another fireball or lightning bolt or 2 left and some 4th level spells as well. The encounters are significant, in that if you had just sat there and used a crossbow, the enemies might have killed one of your party members before the 1d6 of damage per round had beat them. However, when you use the fireballs, the battle is over in 2 rounds and wasn't that interesting.

The reason the 15 minute day comes along is that in order to make it MORE interesting, a lot of DMs up the power of the encounter so that it requires 4 fireballs and 2 magic missiles to win. The combat lasts a little bit longer, adds a bit more tension and crosses the line in player perception to "I'm out of 3rd level spells, maybe we should rest". Even though the caster may still have his "big guns" left(4th level spells), he is out of his average guns. One big gun may not be enough to defeat the next encounter by itself and the party chooses to rest rather than take the risk.

If the wizard (or insert Class X) has enough wizardy things to do every round, he will not use up his best wizardy resources as quickly, and consequently will not cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem.​

Doing something wizardly each round isn't really the cause of the 15 minute day. That's a different problem altogether.

 

[gizmo33]

However, when you use the fireballs, the battle is over in 2 rounds and wasn't that interesting.

I actually agree with the bulk of your analysis, but this part is where we differ - or you might be implying something here that isn't true IMO. The battle is interesting because you have used 2 fireballs in a situation where you might need one later for the BBEG. Now, absent all other factors and context that in itself is not very interesting, but that is the dimension of interest that resource management adds to this encounter. The fact is that the player could have considered using a lesser weapon instead of fireball if he really thought the battle were all that conclusive, and the bearing that the choice is going to have on future encounters makes it a meaningful choice.

The other possiblity here is that you're implying that it's undesireable to have something uninteresting happen for 2 rounds. Frankly, since it is only taking two rounds to resolve, a combat system that is fairly streamlined will not make this much of a problem IMO. The combat will be quickly resolved and it's *outcome*, in terms of remaining resources, will be far more relevant to the overall adventure than the details of the actual encounter.