Why is it so important?

[Jackelope King]

No, I am asking you to provide the mechanics of the encounter. IOW, simply transcribe your encounter notes (with stats) or cut & paste them if you work on your computer. We shouldn't need to see a round-by-round to determine the level of mechanical interest.

EDIT: Unless you are contending that you cannot determine whether or not an encounter is mechanically interesting on the basis of such data?

RC

If you wish. I hope you're willing to be impartial enough to recognize the mechanical significance which these elements helped to impart when brought together.

Enemies

Suika (PL 11 Water-controlling Ninja)
relevant abilities:
Skills: Acrobatics +11, Stealth +14
Feats: Hide in Plain Sight, Sneak Attack 4
Powers: Water Control 10 (AP: Blast 10, AP: Obscure (Visual) 10, AP: Suffocate 10)

Shift (Morphed into Sayre) (PL 12 Shapeshifting Alien)
relevant abilities
Skills: Bluff +12, Intimidate +16
Feats: Challenge (Fast Intimidate)
Powers: Shapeshift 12, Drain Toughness 10 (Extra: Affects Objects) LINKED Damage 10, Immunity 5 (Interaction Skills))

Alt-Warlock (PL 11 Brute)
relevant abilities
Skills: Sense Motive +7
Feats: Power Attack, Improved Grab, Improved Grapple
Powers: Enhanced Strength 20; Damage 13 (Extras: Alternate Save (Will), Ranged; Flaws: (Only Warlock) (-2), Limited (Damage suffered) (-1); Power Feats: Triggered (When struck with an effect with a will save))

Federal Agents x2 (PL 8 Agents)
relevant abilities
Skills: Sense Motive +12
Feats: Teamwork
Powers: Device (Heavy Pistol; Chronostatic Ammo (Damage 12 (Extras: Ranged) LINKED Paralyze 12); AP: Explosive Ammo (Damage 12 (Extras: Penetrating))

US Military Police x4 (PL 7 Soldiers)
relevant abilities
Skills: Sense Motive +6
Feats: Teamwork 2, Improved Grab
Powers: Device (Assault Rifle; Damage 7 (Extras: Autofire 2, Penetrating, Ranged)); AP: Grenade Launcher (Damage 12 (Extras: Burst Area, Ranged; Flaws: Unreliable 2 (One Use))


Environment

Lab table, Desk (x8)
relevant abilities
Powers: Shield 2 (Extras: Touch Range, Continuous Duration) LINKED Protection 6 (Extras: Touch Range, Not Permanent) (Flaw: Strength Check required (DC 15))
upend a table or desk to create low wall w/ cover

Volatile Chemicals
relevant abilities
Powers: Damage 5 (Extras: Burst Area Sustained, Independent, Penetrating; Power Feats: Progression (reduced area: 5 ft.), Triggered (Damaged))
damaged chemicals splash, burning those in area

Fire Suppression-System
relevant abilities
Powers: Obscure 10 (Visual; Flaws: Limited (Partial Only))

Area: 40' x 30' long L, 20' x 30' short L


Heroes

Fortune (PL 11 Luck Controller
Kage (alternate version, remove telepathy array, add teleportation array) (PL 11 Psychic Ninja)
Roc (PL 11 Radiation Controller)
Warlock (PL 11 Hellfire Controller)

NPC Backup
Ex-Inspector Ramirez (PL 10 Psychic Cop)[/b]


The MacGuffin
Monkey (PL 0 Tiny Caged Animal)
relevent abilities
Powers: Shrinking 8 (Permenant)

The encounter accomplishes the following:
- It provides a wide spectrum of different challenging enemies for the PCs to face
- It provides for tactical interaction with the environment
- It challenges different characters directly in different ways due to different complications and descriptors
- It is challenging enough that the PCs required teamwork to overcome it
- No "throw-away threats" (NPCs who were unable to damage the characters with Impervious protection, NPCs whose attacks were too low to hit the faster characters)
- NPCs could shift tactics if the PCs adapted to the fight (which they did... soldiers grappled Fortune, Agents used Chronostatic ammo against Roc, Shift used Drain/Damage against the relatively frail Ronin, etc.)
- Being stun on any given round directly increased the likelyhood of the opposing side being more effective on subsequent rounds
- It is directly significant to the plot (lose the MacGuffin and probability of friend dying increases)

The "mechanical significance" thing is stressed over and over in a way that seems to imply that is distinct from chance of death. In some cases in your M&M example it is, but not being an M&M player I'm not really sure how much to make of this example. How significant is it to use action points in an encounter where you gain back an equal number or more? That to me, superficially, doesn't seem like a very interesting situation but since your example is set in M&M terms, I might be missing some points.

Hero points, not action points. And it was sheer luck that the PCs wound up with exactly the same HP totals at the start of the encounter as they did at the end. It was a combination of them getting HP from NPC actions (Warlock soul-stabbing his alternate self), their own complications (Kage seemingly facing the mad scientist who tortured her as a child), and circumstantial complications (files that would allow for blackmailing Fortune in the hands of the enemy).

I don't know what happens in a game system where PCs can't die. In your M&M example, a PC "almost takes himself out by stabbing an alternate universe version of himself". I don't know what "takes out" means if it doesn't mean death. Furthermore, if PCs don't die, I don't know what is stopping them from just trying the objective over and over again until they succeed. I suppose there might be some sort of railroad type thing that prevents PCs from revisiting an objective once they've "failed" but, again, I don't really understand the context of this since it's happening in M&M.

Then understand it in the context of a story. They're in a hostile location on an alternate earth trying to recover the MacGuffin (the monkey) so that they can use it to heal a dying friend on their world. If they're defeated, someone might simply escape with the monkey, and they have to track down the enemy all over again. Or they're captured and held in a facility which they know performs illegal, painful experiments on metahumans and metahuman remains. Or note that two of the PCs come from opposite sides of a sort of secret metahuman war, and might betray one another at any given second.

Warlock in particular simply almost knocked himself out (reduced his condition to unconscious... instead, he was bruised and staggered for a round, which meant the party was short their best blaster for a round).

And gizmo, I hope you'll answer a question I asked you several pages ago which you never responded to:

I think that "strawman" gets misused on this board all of the time to mean something that the reader doesn't agree with and this is not it's definition.

My argument was not intended to be a proxy argument. Proving my example as valid does not prove my case, but it was a counter-example to your blanket statement that placing encounters in context could never be heavy-handed/manipulative. That's all I was trying to do there, not change the nature of the argument or create a strawman.

When did I say "placing encounters in context could never be heavy-handed/manipulative"?

 

[Mieric]

Um, I find it's much easier to challenge players when they don't have to worry about resource management - because you have a much better idea of how the character will perform at any particular time.

Possibly true, hell even probably true to a certain extent.

I prefer to challenge the players to think than challenge the characters to use resources - it's much more satisfying on both sides that way.

Our group definately prefers the Ironman style of adventuring. We know we have limited resources and when exploring, conquring, or when rescuing the prince(ess) from the ______ of ______ we have to be careful of not overextending ourselves but at the same time dealing with the logical consequences of retreating to rest because we decided to perform an alpha strike.

We often find that the safest place to hold up and rest is actually behind enemy lines as opposed to in town or outside the dungeon (deeper in the dungeon where we haven't killed anything yet and the alarm hasn't been raised).

On a seperate note, I think my groups PnP playstyle is also why I've only enjoyed AC1 out of all the MMOs I've tried - limitless economies, the con systems (and the resulting mob bashing paradigm), and extremely limited to no resource management just don't do it for me.

 

[pemerton]

The encounter accomplishes the following:

<snip encounter properties>

Nice example - it sounds like the sort of thing I've been talking about, as far as tactical interest is concerned.

Hero points, not action points.

Am I right in thinking that the gaining and spending of Hero Points is linked to protagonism and antagonism in the context of player-defined goals or themes for the PC in question?

Then understand it in the context of a story.

<snip story>

Your story sounds like a fun one!

 

[Jackelope King]

Am I right in thinking that the gaining and spending of Hero Points is linked to protagonism and antagonism in the context of player-defined goals or themes for the PC in question?

Essentially, yes. PCs mainly get hero points for complications coming up related to their history. For example, Kage was tortured as a child by Doctor Sayre so badly that her response to Sayre is an almost feral fear/aggression response. She gets hero points when confronted with Sayre.

As another example, Warlock and Roc are engaged and soon to be married. If Roc were to be kidnapped, Warlock would get a hero point for that (and vice verca if Warlock were kidnapped).

Your story sounds like a fun one!

Thanks! It's the result of a fair handful of good GMs in a round-robin game.

 

[IanArgent]

You knew that there was a chance of failure, you apparently knew roughly what that chance was, and you made a decision on that basis. That is not the fault of the dice.

If, in fact, you knew that there was a chance of failure, you apparently knew roughly what that chance was, and you made a decision on that basis, yet regardless of the roll your result was predetermined I would see a real problem with the game. If the DM decides that you live anyway, it invalidates the choice that you made by removing much of the context and all of the consequence of that choice. This would make me quit the game (politely). Again, though, not the fault of the dice.

In this particular case, it took several rounds of poor dice to do my character in. I could have, in retrospect, probably have "played dead" (maybe not though), but it wasn't an appropriate response from the character.

IMHO, there's a difference between save-or-die (been there, done that), and several rounds of bad luck.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If you wish. I hope you're willing to be impartial enough to recognize the mechanical significance which these elements helped to impart when brought together.

Thank you, Jackelope King. As I said earlier, I would probably end up agreeing with you that the encounter was mechanically significant, though I couldn't do so without recourse to the mechanics. The things that, I agree, make the encounter mechanically interesting are:

- It is challenging enough that the PCs required teamwork to overcome it
- No "throw-away threats" (NPCs who were unable to damage the characters with Impervious protection, NPCs whose attacks were too low to hit the faster characters)​

Everything else, IMHO, supports that important core point: The PCs could lose.

I have already agreed, many times, that a win/lose scenario is mechanically significant. In fact, I directly claimed that the system WotC seems to be setting up removes much of the mechanical significance of any other encounter type, meaning that the DM is far more likely to set up win/lose encounters than any other type.

And, if this is your answer re: 4 basic kobolds vs 20th level characters, it seems that you agree that "throw-away threats" are not mechanically interesting?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

In this particular case, it took several rounds of poor dice to do my character in. I could have, in retrospect, probably have "played dead" (maybe not though), but it wasn't an appropriate response from the character.

I don't see how that invalidates my point.

You made a decision knowing what the odds were. You gambled and lost.

RC

 

[Jackelope King]

Everything else, IMHO, supports that important core point: The PCs could lose.

I have already agreed, many times, that a win/lose scenario is mechanically significant. In fact, I directly claimed that the system WotC seems to be setting up removes much of the mechanical significance of any other encounter type, meaning that the DM is far more likely to set up win/lose encounters than any other type.

The PCs could always lose. They almost lost a few weeks ago fighting a few low-PL mooks with armor-piercing ammo when the two toughest members of the group kept flubbing their (low-DC) toughness saves.

And as your wording suggests, you also recognize that there are many different consequences of defeat ("lose" not "die"). The GM who took over for the current arc in our M&M game ran an encounter on Saturday where there was absolutely no significant penalty for defeat (other than bragging rights). The players got to play students at the school founded by the team's psychic ninja in a training exercise: using their powers and skills, keep the ball away from the other team for 30 seconds. There were scrambles for the ball when someone dropped it or had it knocked away from them, and skirmishes to try to take down the girl on the other team who was an absolutely amazing soccer player (and thus the one most likely to steal the ball away (and be hard to steal the ball back from). This encounter was quite mechanically significant, as evidenced by the extreme shift in tactics from a normal fight to focus on a new target (knowing when to pass the ball and when to hold it, or using your powers to try to fake out the other team).

There's nothing necessarily wrong if the PCs lose encounters sometimes (which you seem to be implying is a threat to the game). If every encounter ends in loss=TPK, then yes, it could be disruptive to the game. But if there are various consequences for defeat, this isn't too much of a problem, and can lead to much more interesting adventures. Capture, forcing a retreat, the villain getting away, loss of clout, are all perfectly acceptable consequences for defeat which don't carry the game-ending hammer of a TPK.

But I'm glad to see that you seem to recognize that your definition of mechanical significance from way back upthread is flawed. This encounter had no net change of expendible personal resources after the encounter relative to before it, and yet it was indeed mechanically significant.

However, I should also point out that we were discussing the 9-9:15 adventuring day, not the ratio of victories/defeats PCs should expect.

And, if this is your answer re: 4 basic kobolds vs 20th level characters, it seems that you agree that "throw-away threats" are not mechanically interesting?

RC

It depends on the encounter. Are these four basic kobolds just ambushing them on the road with shortspears? Or are they sitting behind a fiendishly-clever trap that they might not even remember how to use? Or are they running away from the PCs through a huge clockwork maze, where the whole landscape is shifting on any given turn? Or are the four kobolds making their way through a set of tunnels underground, using hit-and-run tactics like the Viet Cong, knowing that most of the PCs can't follow them through the tunnels? If an encounter requires a thoughtful approach and some clever use of abilities on the part of the PCs, it doesn't matter how weak the enemy is. Two 20th-level fighters alternating full-attacks on each other is just as mechanically unfulfilling as a 20th-level party steamrolling over an EL1 challenge.

 

[Gwathlas]

I don't know. I can understand having a "little" more flexibility, but I'm concerned that this per encounter/at will/per day structure is "idiot proofing" PCs to the point to where what decision they may isn't that big a deal. Should you use mage blast or one of your spells? Eh, in the end, if you make the wrong choice, you have more choices, and you won't really be "wrong," you just may have to fight something for 8 rounds instead of three.

I agree with KnightErrantJR. It does sound like they are idiot proofing everything. Add onto the per encounter ect., ect., that powers/stances/magic will allow characters to set up flanking or other positive modifers with out actually flanking or performing any action.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The PCs could always lose. They almost lost a few weeks ago fighting a few low-PL mooks with armor-piercing ammo when the two toughest members of the group kept flubbing their (low-DC) toughness saves.

If 4e includes the possibility of the PCs losing against everything they face, then that will certainly make things different. Do you expect a condition track in 4e?

And as your wording suggests, you also recognize that there are many different consequences of defeat ("lose" not "die").

Yes. If you go back upthread, you will see that I acknowledge this many, many times. However, I also realize that death is the most common "defeat" used by average DMs.

In the attrition model, you are not facing a zero-sum game with encounters. It is possible to win, but to have that win be so costly as to be worthless, damaging, mildly annoying, or to have no cost at all. It is not either/or.

In a per-encounter model, the encounter must answer all mechanical interests. That means it can be, as Shilsen pointed out, a showcase easy encounter where you can show off and try tricky things that you'd hate to have fail in a significant encounter, or it can be an encounter where you can lose, or it can be an encounter that is not mechanically interesting. Since the showcase encounter is unlikely to be mechanically interesting if done too often, that leaves the win/lose encounter.

When addressing the problem of the 9-9:15 adventuring day, what you or I would do with the system is not IMHO important; what the average DM will do, and what the average players will do, is. So the question becomes, what does the system reward?

If the system rewards the DM when he puts in win/lose encounters (as seems the case), and if the most common "lose" in D&D is death (as has certainly been the case up until now), then it makes sense that the average DM will include more deadly encounters.

If the average DM includes more deadly encounters, it seems more likely (to me at least) that the average players will use their per-day resources before someone dies. Which means, sooner rather than later. Why? Because the PC experience a higher success ratio, which means they are rewarded.

If the average players view their per-day resources as important for dealing with the common deadly encounters, they will want them available. Why? Because the PC experience a higher success ratio, which means they are rewarded.

If nothing else prevents it, then, the PCs will use, rest, rinse, and repeat. Exactly the same as with 3.X. The only differenc might be that the frequency of win/lose encounters increases, in which case the adventuring day shortens.

On average. YMMV.


RC