Why is it so important?

[Majoru Oakheart]

I have to wonder how you will react to 4e if it is no fun for you or a number of your players to constantly run 1 hour long battles which use only a couple of resources and whose ending is a foregone conclusion?

This is a point that I have been trying to make for a very, very long time.

I know the point you are trying to make: That if you don't use any resources at all, then the battle was boring. Since everyone's powers were all per encounter that means that all battles that don't dip into people's daily resources will be boring. Since all battles are boring, you must increase the difficulty of encounters to the point where each one will use up daily resources. And then groups will rest to get them back after every encounter, thus creating the same situation.

What I'm trying to say is that in the "weak" encounters that one throws up against a party as part of the resource attrition/per day model tend to use up mostly hitpoints/cleric spells of the party rather than any other resource.

So, you fight a battle where the wizard doesn't need to cast spells since it's too easy to waste them but the fighter gets hit for 30 damage before you take out the enemy. The cleric heals the damage and the party continues. The party fights another battle that's too easy to waste wizard spells on and the fighter takes some damage and gets healed, then repeat. The battles aren't fun for anyone except the fighter and maybe rogue as they are the only ones doing anything of note in the combat. The cleric sits there and heals, the wizard either casts some spells because he's bored or uses a crossbow to miss.

It's not a matter of the battle being a forgone conclusion. Most are. I don't see a lot of DMs hoping that the party will lose the encounter, so they purposefully use enemies the party will defeat.

It's a matter of how interesting the tactics during the battle are and how much fun is had while trying to beat them. This is created by having a variety of enemies in the came encounter with varying abilities which work together in an interesting environment rather than using resource attrition to decide when it's the best time for the wizard to actually cast spells.

 

[Mallus]

I am currently running...

I'm only repeating myself because you keep missing the point.

So what problems do you have with M&M's model (with its few resources and foregone conclusions)? Why doesn't it work? That's what you should be trying to demonstrate.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I know the point you are trying to make: That if you don't use any resources at all, then the battle was boring.

Not exactly, because my point is not absolute. It relies upon provisos.

My point requires that the player(s) and/or DM feel that, to be exciting, an encounter must be meaningful outside the context of the encounter itself. That is to say, while in many cases, if you ask the question "What makes an encounter exciting?" designers, DMs, and players will look within the encounter itself and make claims that an exciting encounter is one which has cool locations, cool actions, and real difficulty. And this is true.

However, DDM can have cool locations, cool actions, and real difficulty, and a series of DDM battles is not the same as a role-playing game. It may be fun, but players do not ascribe the same meaning to these battles because they have no context or consequences outside of the battles themselves.

Removing resourse attrition removes a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter. Reducing the affect of resource attrition reduces a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter. This ought to be self-evident.

If you accept that context or consequences outside of the battles themselves is a part of what makes combat encounters exciting, it should therefore follow that reducing anything that reduces a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter is also going to reduce the excitement of that encounter.

Obviously, you can increase other factors to increase the excitement of that encounter, but when the most obvious factor is the difficulty of the encounter itself, and you have already narrowed the level of difficulty possible without resulting in a TPK, you will be hard pressed indeed to raise the stakes successfully in this way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm only repeating myself because you keep missing the point.

Likewise.

So what problems do you have with M&M's model (with its few resources and foregone conclusions)? Why doesn't it work? That's what you should be trying to demonstrate.

Answered upthread, long long ago.

 

[Jackelope King]

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.

But this really doesn't follow. For example, I'm in charge of digital audio recording lectures in class. Sometimes, though, the microphone cuts out and stops recording on the computer. It's pretty easy for me to stroll on up and jiggle the cord until the computer recognizes it again. I have no problem doing this. But a lot of the people who volunteer to help with recording are baffled by this. All the cords look the same, and they just want to know why we can't get a new cord.

Now there is something to be said for the different ways we use the recording system. I know more about computer hardware and this computer in particular that I can fix the microphone, whereas many of my classmates do not. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that the source of the problem for many other students could be resolved if IST would just get us a new cord.

The problems we're seeing are similar. Sure, there are plenty of ways a group can short-cut around the problems and keep the game fun by using different playstyles. You described some of these patches earlier, RC, when you replied to pemerton that a party could be enabled to go on cleanup duty after slaying the BBEG by having the BBEG's death provide them with the healing potions and disposeable resources they need to do the job. (I personally think this is a little contrived, but that is irrelevant here.) But just because people know a system well enough to avoid pitfalls experienced by others doesn't mean that there are no problems with the system. Certainly different approaches to the system can be more or less successful depending on the system, but that doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist.

In summary, just because we know how to side-step the 15-minute adventuring day and provide supplimentary resources necessary to keep the game going doesn't mean that the 15-minute adventuring day problem and limited resources aren't necessarily a problem. It's like the software guys blaming the users for bugs. Sure, it could be someone attempting to play Minesweeper in Quicken, but it might also be someone trying to balance their checkbook and Quicken keeps crashing on them.

 

[Jackelope King]

Removing resourse attrition removes a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter. Reducing the affect of resource attrition reduces a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter. This ought to be self-evident.

If you accept that context or consequences outside of the battles themselves is a part of what makes combat encounters exciting, it should therefore follow that reducing anything that reduces a measure of both context and consequence for any given encounter is also going to reduce the excitement of that encounter.

Obviously, you can increase other factors to increase the excitement of that encounter, but when the most obvious factor is the difficulty of the encounter itself, and you have already narrowed the level of difficulty possible without resulting in a TPK, you will be hard pressed indeed to raise the stakes successfully in this way.

And I'm more than willing to dump that system in exchange for one that allows for more freedom of pacing and gaming. There is plenty of significance which can be assigned to an encounter within the context of the world itself if the PCs' victory/defeat has an impact on the rest of the world, as I described on my first post in the thread. I don't need or want a system that encourages the players to play a game closer to Boy Scout Camping Adventure than Heroic D&D Fantasy to assign meaning.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But this really doesn't follow.

Sure it does. In your example, it is the interaction between users and systems that needs to be looked at to see what is happening, and it might mean that the cord needs to be replaced. However, until you look at what is different between your use of the system and the other person's use of the system (i.e., the interaction between System X and Persons Y and A), you are unlikely to know why the system fails the other guy.

Moreover, if you assume that the problem is caused by some part of the system other than the one you manipulate to resolve the problem yourself (jiggle the wire; give reasons not to rest) then it seems unlikely that what you propose as a solution will work (change the microphone; give more resources).

In summary, just because we know how to side-step the 15-minute adventuring day and provide supplimentary resources necessary to keep the game going doesn't mean that the 15-minute adventuring day problem and limited resources aren't necessarily a problem. It's like the software guys blaming the users for bugs. Sure, it could be someone attempting to play Minesweeper in Quicken, but it might also be someone trying to balance their checkbook and Quicken keeps crashing on them.

Sounds an awful lot like:

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.​

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I'm more than willing to dump that system in exchange for one that allows for more freedom of pacing and gaming.

Granted. But I am not arguing that this is something you are unwilling to do. I am arguing that, if you are having the 15-minute adventuring day problem with 3.X, you will probably have it with 4.0, if and only if the measures mentioned on Wyatt's blog are the only "solution" to this problem presented by the new ruleset.

RC

 

[Jackelope King]

Granted. But I am not arguing that this is something you are unwilling to do. I am arguing that, if you are having the 15-minute adventuring day problem with 3.X, you will probably have it with 4.0, if and only if the measures mentioned on Wyatt's blog are the only "solution" to this problem presented by the new ruleset.

RC

I think that very much depends on what your threshold for fatigue is.

For most groups, they'll rest after their bread and butter resources are running low (cure criticals, mid-level spells, etc.). If your bread and butter resources are per-encounter, and only your big guns are per-day, then the 15-minute adventuring day is likely to go away. PCs might not always go into a fight at full health, or occassionally down one of their big guns, but they'll never be without their bread and butter abilities. The system will better support the heroic ideal of sallying forth even in the face of great danger, even if it starts to move away from the old Gygaxian expert dungeoneer ideal (which to me isn't terribly heroic).

Alternatively, if your group spikes the door after every fight because the wizard went nova or because you're terrified of the prospect of going into battle down three cure criticals, then this problem may be reduced, but not eliminated. The only way to eliminate this problem is to eliminate per-day resources (which doesn't sound like it'll be the case).

Or if you're someone who adores the old Gygaxian expert dungeoneer, carefully rationing everything and taking every step with great care, knowing that your character's survival through a difficult exploration is the biggest source of satisfaction, you'll probably be unhappy to lose out on an aspect of the game you used to shine at.

In this instance, it is indeed different reactions of different users to a common problem. Some people overreact ("Oh God, Quicken crashed on me! Next time, I'll take everything one click at a time and save at every keystroke!"), some find their work inhibited by it, but keep on working ("Okay, I'll just save more often. It's better than nothing."), and others embrace it ("Aha! Once again, I've balanced my checkbook before Quicken could crash! Victory is mine!").

For D&D, the common problem is one of limited resources in attrition, a restriction which inhibits different styles of gameplay. For some people, the problem is a boon, because the restriction fits their gameplay style oh so well. For others, though, the restriction makes it more difficult to rationalize mechanically-inspired actions (resting at 9:15 because the wizard ran out of fireballs) in light of the versimilitude of the game-world itself or even just the genre (where heroes may be forced to rest and recover because of their wounds or because the wizard's magic has left him physically and emotionally exhausted).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that very much depends on what your threshold for fatigue is.

Exactly. And threshold for fatigue is based very much on rules set. It is based very strongly, specifically, on two factors:

(1) How much is my current fatigue liable to harm me, and

(2) How much is resting liable to harm me.

Or, as I put it much earlier, the 15-minute adventuring day problem arises from players not asking themselves, "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?"

Now, I say that the player who does this does not ask himself "Is this the fight where I break out this big gun?" does not do so because the game rewards him for not doing so. Using the big gun at the first hint of trouble increases his chance of survival. The only cost to him is that he has to rest -- i.e., accept that his character adventures for 15 minutes before resting to recover and reset. This is an acceptable (if not desireable) exchange for this player, or he would not do it.

If you believe that this reasoning is false, please propound your alternative theory.

For most groups, they'll rest after their bread and butter resources are running low (cure criticals, mid-level spells, etc.). If your bread and butter resources are per-encounter, and only your big guns are per-day, then the 15-minute adventuring day is likely to go away.

If the above was true, and was the only real consideration, then a system with fewer bread-and-butter resources would cause those resources to be used more quickly, and consequently 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 you have more bread-and-butter resources, you will not use up your bread-and-butter resources as quickly, and consequently will not cause the 15-minute adventuring day problem" cannot, in general, be true.

Alternatively, if your group spikes the door after every fight because the wizard went nova or because you're terrified of the prospect of going into battle down three cure criticals, then this problem may be reduced, but not eliminated. The only way to eliminate this problem is to eliminate per-day resources (which doesn't sound like it'll be the case).

If the above was true, and was the only real consideration, then a system with fewer per-day resources, and no magical per-encounter resources, would cause those resources to be used more quickly, and consequently 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, again, your reasoning here cannot, in general, be true. I do, however, believe that it is what WotC believes to be true.

Or if you're someone who adores the old Gygaxian expert dungeoneer, carefully rationing everything and taking every step with great care, knowing that your character's survival through a difficult exploration is the biggest source of satisfaction, you'll probably be unhappy to lose out on an aspect of the game you used to shine at.

This I can agree with.



RC