Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

You're making a claim and not backing it up with evidence. It's as simple as that. You were the first to claim that the group in question was a minority. Provide evidence or retract your claim.

I guess you missed what I was responding to:

A growing number of gamers simply have a spoken or unspoken rule that they don't kill PCs for whatever reason.​

That was the first claim, and it is yours. Provide evidence or retract your claim, and I will be happy to do so for my statement that what you see as "a growing number of gamers" I see as "a vocal minority".

I need only quote you in one place.

You agreed that an encounter with per-encounter mechanics only and no net change of resources was mechanically significant. Therefore, I am glad to see that you agree that a purely per-encounter system does indeed allow for mechanically interesting encounters, a retraction of your previous argument that challenges under a purely per-resource system cannot allow for mechanically meaningful encounters.

Yes, I agreed dozens of times throughout the course of this thread that an encounter with per-encounter mechanics only could be mechanically significant. Please quote where I said that "challenges under a purely per-resource system cannot allow for mechanically meaningful encounters" or retract your statement.

This is, btw, the exact "argument" that pemerton claimed I used, after I left the floor, which required no effort at all to demonstrate as a false assertation. If I must, I will provide a dozen quotes or more to demonstrate your statement re: my position to be wrong.

So quote or retract, unless you are intentionally misrepresenting my position.

 

[Jackelope King]

I guess you missed what I was responding to:

A growing number of gamers simply have a spoken or unspoken rule that they don't kill PCs for whatever reason.​

That was the first claim, and it is yours. Provide evidence or retract your claim, and I will be happy to do so for my statement that what you see as "a growing number of gamers" I see as "a vocal minority".

1. How many gamers agreed not to kill PCs under OD&D?

2. How many gamers agreed not to kill PCs under games today?

I find it highly improbable to the point of absurdity that 1. is greater than 2. Hence it is a "growing number of gamers" by definition.

Now provide your evidence that it's a "vocal minority" or retract your claim.

Yes, I agreed dozens of times throughout the course of this thread that an encounter with per-encounter mechanics only could be mechanically significant. Please quote where I said that "challenges under a purely per-resource system cannot allow for mechanically meaningful encounters" or retract your statement.

This is, btw, the exact "argument" that pemerton claimed I used, after I left the floor, which required no effort at all to demonstrate as a false assertation. If I must, I will provide a dozen quotes or more to demonstrate your statement re: my position to be wrong.

So quote or retract, unless you are intentionally misrepresenting my position.

I'm always happy to remind you of what you said. Earlier, you agreed that your argument was essentially:

1. Mechanical thresholds of significance are only measurable by how one encounter's resource expenditure informs the next encounter in the day's outcome.

2. Per-day resource attrition is the only way to achieve mechanical thresholds of significance as defined in 1.

You did not dispute this summary of your position earlier, hence I was led to conclude that you believed that mechanical thresholds of significance could only be achieved by the expenditure of per-day (or longer-term, such as life) resources. What led me to propose this were these (among other) quotes:

1. In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle. It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario. We have been told for a very long time, "if it doesn't impact the game, it's better to handwave it."

1a. The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-encounter resources don't impact the game, and hence are not significant.

1b. The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-day resources impact the game, and hence are significant.

1c. We are told that the problem that this design is meant to counter is resting as soon as significant (in the metagame sense) resources are depleted.

1ci. Having greater insignificant (in the metagame sense) resources means that you can adventure longer, but also that said adventuring is not meaningful (again, in the metagame sense).


<snip>


2. In order to make a battle significant, all (or the vast majority of) non-handwaved battles should have a reasonable chance of expending per-day resources.

<snip>

Question: Then whysoever, may I ask, have we been told time and time again, to eschew that "4 goblins vs. 10th level figher" in 3.X?

Answer: Because we are told that it is not fun.

Question: Why are we told that it is not fun?

Answer: Because it is not significant, and more specifically because it has no chance to affect the outcome of the adventure.

Question: If this was true for 3e, why would it not be true for 4e?

Answer: ????

The problem the "per-encounter" ability design is supposed to fix is that of PCs resting after they use their significant resources. This design means that you can extend combats beyond those that use up significant resources, certainly, but only by making those combats inconsequential. Which we have already been told, time and again, is unfun.

Oi! Is it possible to get past this? I have already said per-encounter resources dozens of times. They are resources; they are just not significant resources.

I, for one, grow weary of repeating everything over and over again. I've given my reasoning on this in exacting detail. I note that neither you, nor anyone else, has pointed out an actual flaw in that reasoning. That doesn't make me correct, but it does give you ample ability to demonstrate me to be incorrect on that basis.

If you care to respond to what I said, fine. Otherwise, I hope you'll understand if I stop responding to your comments.

RC

An encounter that doesn't consume per-day resources is not irrelevant, but is insignificant in terms of mechanical threshold of significance in a system that combines per-day and per-encounter resources, barring some other factor (such as a risk/reward ratio to resting) that makes it significant.

RC

This is only from a survey of about 10 pages. Based on my reading, it would be accurate to claim that you did not believe that an encounter can be mechanically significant without a net-change in resources from before to after the encounter. Demonstrated an encounter with no net-change in resources from before to after the encounter which was still mechanically significant, which you agreed was mechanically significant. Hence I must conclude that you have come to accept that a per-encounter system is sufficient for providing mechanical significance, even with no net-change in resources from before to after an encounter.

Or, if this is not an accurate representation of your position, are you claiming that you intended to mislead the other posters in the thread?

 

[Raven Crowking]

1. How many gamers agreed not to kill PCs under OD&D?

2. How many gamers agreed not to kill PCs under games today?

I find it highly improbable to the point of absurdity that 1. is greater than 2. Hence it is a "growing number of gamers" by definition.

That isn't evidence; it is speculation. I can get that easily enough anywhere on the Internet. Please provide your evidence.

:I'm always happy to remind you of what you said. Earlier, you agreed that your argument was essentially:

1. In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle. It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario. We have been told for a very long time, "if it doesn't impact the game, it's better to handwave it."

1a. The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-encounter resources don't impact the game, and hence are not significant.

1b. The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-day resources impact the game, and hence are significant.

1c. We are told that the problem that this design is meant to counter is resting as soon as significant (in the metagame sense) resources are depleted.

1ci. Having greater insignificant (in the metagame sense) resources means that you can adventure longer, but also that said adventuring is not meaningful (again, in the metagame sense).

Yup. Definitely said that, and still hold it to be true. Wish you hadn't then snipped the part where I then concluded that win/lose scenarios would increase because they remained significant regardless. You presented a mechanically significant win/lose encounter. Exactly what I predicted, and which you (for some reason best known to you) chose not to include in your quotation.

You then brought up M&M, an excellent game, whereupon I immediately agreed that within the paradigm of that game mechanical significance could exist without resource attrition. Indeed, I went so far as to claim that if a game has only per-encounter abilities, it would be easier to reach a mechanical threshold of significance than with the mixed bag that 4e will apparently present.

I also, time and again, ensured to remind others -- yourself included -- that "threshold of mechanical significance" was a term that did not imply all forms of significance in an encounter. Shilsen gave an example of mechanical significance independent of resource attrition within the D&D paradigm, which was not win/lose, and therefore fell outside the bounds of the argument I made. I happily acknowledged that he was correct, although I do not believe one can hang a game on the type of mechanical significance he used. The problem is, of course, that I believe WotC is trying to hang the game on mechanical significance of the type Shilsen described.

You demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, but which included a reasonalbe possiblity of loss, alllowing for as much change in resources as is possible within the paradigm of the game chosen. Shilsen, OTOH, demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, no reasonable possibility of loss, and within the paradigm of a game with resource attritrion.

It would be accurate to claim that, with the exception Shilsen provided, I do not believe that an encounter can be mechanically significant, within the context of a system with resource attrition without a net change, or the reasonable possibility of a net change in resources from before to after the encounter.

I will therefore assume that, either through lack of clarity on my part or otherwise, your misrepresentation is unintentional.

 

[IanArgent]

I would like to point out here that it is almost always easier to kill a party than not; so reducing average lethality is on balance a Good Thing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So quote or retract, unless you are intentionally misrepresenting my position

Please could all parties in this discussion refrain from using this "Retract, or..." thingie? It sounds unneccessary aggressive/threatening.

If any one feels threatened or aggressive due to the way the discussion progressed, consider taking a break.

Maybe I should take my own advice?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Please could all parties in this discussion refrain from using this "Retract, or..." thingie? It sounds unneccessary aggressive/threatening.

Sorry.

You know, early on in (my involvement in) this discussion, I said that I use a mixed bag of per-day and per-encounter in my own homebrewed 3.X, and that it therefore matters very much how this is implemented.

Over and over, I included in my remarks things like "unless there are other factors...." (paraphrase; I haven't gone back to check my exact wording). I have fully acknowledged that factors unknown can affect how the system implements. I have just not seen any sign that the type of factors that would mitigate in favour are in the 4e gameplan.

So, I guess, this weekend I'll start the process of going over the entire damn thread and put the entire argument (up to this point), including links of who said what, and we'll see what the result is.

It's a long thread; it might take a while.

RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

In my game last weekend, the PCs retreated from the dungeon after ONE encounter. I told them they were making a mockery of D&D and that the game only works when there are four encounters a day but they wouldn't listen.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sorry.

You know, early on in (my involvement in) this discussion, I said that I use a mixed bag of per-day and per-encounter in my own homebrewed 3.X, and that it therefore matters very much how this is implemented.

Over and over, I included in my remarks things like "unless there are other factors...." (paraphrase; I haven't gone back to check my exact wording). I have fully acknowledged that factors unknown can affect how the system implements. I have just not seen any sign that the type of factors that would mitigate in favour are in the 4e gameplan.

So, I guess, this weekend I'll start the process of going over the entire damn thread and put the entire argument (up to this point), including links of who said what, and we'll see what the result is.

It's a long thread; it might take a while.

RC

Dont't work to hard for it. I think it was pemerton that used a lot of links in one of his previous posts, and I don't think it really helped. Because few people will ever follow them. (I for sure didn't.)

And it's not like links would guarantee it any more that someone browsing through the thread and finding a post he wants to answer will also read your post linking and enhancing it.

My best advice is putting your full thought in a single post (keeping in mind the things already written) and in a way that it works without too many quotes and back-references.

(And then wait and see how people still will not get your ideas or just happen to disagree. But don't get overworked with it. I have never seen an internet debate in which one side could persuade the other side. The only thing you can hope for is giving the undecided ones a way to formulate a decision for themselves...)

 

[pemerton]

This is, btw, the exact "argument" that pemerton claimed I used, after I left the floor

Actually, I used the following paraphrase, in post #1103:

For whatever reason, you do not accept that mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, if in the end it does not result in such attrition.​

Furthermore, despite your protests, I don't feel this paraphrase to be significantly inaccurate. You may quibble over the fact that there is no reference to "win/lose" in my passage. But (as Jackelope King has pointed out) you had earlier defined "mechanical significance in the following manner:

It is basically my argument that, if you can have any number of encounters X, and at the end of those encounters you are at 80% resources, then an encounter that leaves you at 80% resources without a significant chance of loss of permanent resources falls below the mechanical threshold of significance.​

And, in your earlier definitive presentation of your argument you suggested that character death, the paradigmatic form of loss, consitutes a type of resource attrition.

You may also quibble over my lack of reference, in my paraphrase, to "significant chances". This notion does not appear in your definitive presentation, but does appear in your later basic summary.

I have thrashed this out in detail with gizmo33, but in summary, I think there is a very important distinction between encounters which pose a significant chance of loss because of the probabilities, and those which (if played well by the players) present no such chance. The latter sort of encounter can be mechanically interesting although (because the players play it well) it presents no significant chance of loss.

I tried to summarise this notion in the following ways:

At post #874:​

*We can suppose that the threat of mechanical significance (in your sense of that phrase) is present in encounters.​

"Threat" here is not equivalent to "significant chance" - it signals that such a chance may arise, but only if the encounter is played poorly.​

At post #1100:

*It is true that, once the fight is over, if per-day resouces were used it does not matter in which round they were used. Likewise, once the fight is over, if they were not used it does not matter in which rounds their use was or was not contemplated by the players. But the interest of an encounter is not something which is determined by reflection on it after it is over. It is something which unfolds within the very encounter itself - and during the encounter (i) the players do not know whether or not their per-day resources will end up being consumed or not and (ii) are able to determine whether or not they will be through their own mechanically interesting choices.​

In response to this latter post, you stated that:

*This is a win/lose situation. The players know they might win; they know they might lose. They do not know which it is going to be.​

You have given no reason for me to retract my characterisation of this as an inference from "because the players do not know, at time T, whether or not they will win or lose, it is therefore (objectively) a win/lose situation."

You denied that you drew such an inference. However, I have no alternative but to interpret it as an inference, because the situation I described was one in which the players do not know whether or not their per-day resources will end up being consumed or not, and it can only be from this description that you drew the inference that the encounter, as described, was a win/lose situation.

I also, time and again, ensured to remind others -- yourself included -- that "threshold of mechanical significance" was a term that did not imply all forms of significance in an encounter. Shilsen gave an example of mechanical significance independent of resource attrition within the D&D paradigm, which was not win/lose, and therefore fell outside the bounds of the argument I made.

Does "outside the bounds" mean "counterexample"?

I happily acknowledged that he was correct, although I do not believe one can hang a game on the type of mechanical significance he used.

<snip>

Shilsen, OTOH, demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, no reasonable possibility of loss, and within the paradigm of a game with resource attritrion.

<snip>

It would be accurate to claim that, with the exception Shilsen provided, I do not believe that an encounter can be mechanically significant, within the context of a system with resource attrition without a net change, or the reasonable possibility of a net change in resources from before to after the encounter.

I take it that this means you accept his counterexample, but regard it as having only limited applicability.

The problem is, of course, that I believe WotC is trying to hang the game on mechanical significance of the type Shilsen described.

I have several times put forward a model, and examples, of mechanical significance which differ from that Shilsen described. In particular, these examples:

*Can operate within the paradigm of a game with per-day resources;
*Do not depend upon resource attrition;
*Are not "win/lose" scenarios.​

Assuming that these examples are plausible, they are therefore counter-examples to your position.

As I noted above, you asserted that these examples are, in fact, win/lose examples. It therefore seems to me that the crucial quesiton for this thread is this:

*Is it possible to have a mechanical frawework in which the probabilities of an encounter unfold dynamically, in response to the choices that players make about their use of PC abilities, such that (if the choices are made well) the encounter is an easy one for the PCs?​

I think the answer to this question is "yes". A good part of my reason for this is that I GM such a game (namely, RM) which involves a mix of per-day resources (spell points) and per-encounter resources (sustained adrenal moves) and round-by-round decisions about deployment of at-will resources (attack vs parry).

I think that those who take the answer to be "no" are confusing difficult for the players with difficult for the PCs. In a purely simulationist set of mechanics, the two are of course the same. But 4e will not have a simulationist set of mechanics. We could summarise this non-simulationism thus:

*Adversity for the PC need not be adversity for the player;
*A challenge for the player need not be a challenge for the PC.​

 

[Jackelope King]

That isn't evidence; it is speculation. I can get that easily enough anywhere on the Internet. Please provide your evidence.

Got a time machine?

Seriously, though, if you're prepared to make the claim that OD&D / 1e DMs were more likely to make a "I won't kill PCs" statement, I will be quite surprised.

Yup. Definitely said that, and still hold it to be true. Wish you hadn't then snipped the part where I then concluded that win/lose scenarios would increase because they remained significant regardless. You presented a mechanically significant win/lose encounter. Exactly what I predicted, and which you (for some reason best known to you) chose not to include in your quotation.

You then brought up M&M, an excellent game, whereupon I immediately agreed that within the paradigm of that game mechanical significance could exist without resource attrition. Indeed, I went so far as to claim that if a game has only per-encounter abilities, it would be easier to reach a mechanical threshold of significance than with the mixed bag that 4e will apparently present.

I also, time and again, ensured to remind others -- yourself included -- that "threshold of mechanical significance" was a term that did not imply all forms of significance in an encounter. Shilsen gave an example of mechanical significance independent of resource attrition within the D&D paradigm, which was not win/lose, and therefore fell outside the bounds of the argument I made. I happily acknowledged that he was correct, although I do not believe one can hang a game on the type of mechanical significance he used. The problem is, of course, that I believe WotC is trying to hang the game on mechanical significance of the type Shilsen described.

You demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, but which included a reasonalbe possiblity of loss, alllowing for as much change in resources as is possible within the paradigm of the game chosen. Shilsen, OTOH, demonstrated an encounter with no net change in resources, no reasonable possibility of loss, and within the paradigm of a game with resource attritrion.

It would be accurate to claim that, with the exception Shilsen provided, I do not believe that an encounter can be mechanically significant, within the context of a system with resource attrition without a net change, or the reasonable possibility of a net change in resources from before to after the encounter.

I will therefore assume that, either through lack of clarity on my part or otherwise, your misrepresentation is unintentional.

My thanks for the clarification.

If I may attempt to sumarize how your view comes across to me:

1. Resource attrition / management is of mechanical signficance (a point on which we agree, even if we enjoy it to differing degrees).

2. The proposed 4e system changes the resource attrition / management system in such a way that the mechanical significance of resource attrition / management is reduced, if not lost (I disagree with you here, because I feel that the emphasis is instead focused on any given encounter and managing resources within that framework).

2a. Specifically, the proposed 4e system increases the reliance on win / lose scenarios beyond what older editions depended upon. (I am uncertain of this, but then again, I tend to run more encounters which you would define as win / lose anyway, simply because the groups I've played with prefer the tactical challenge).

2b. An increased number of win / lose encounters will demand that players use their strongest (and presumably per-day) resources early in order to triumph. (I strongly disagree with this, because again, in my experience, players almost invariably use their meat-and-potatoes/bread-and-butter abilities before they're willing to expend rarer resources, even in my games where I tend to use more encounters you'd likely call win / lose).

or

2c. An increased number of win / lose encounters will have consequences disruptive to gameplay (increased rate of character death for the average group). (Again, I would disagree. Though I rarely kill characters, my group prefers encounters you'd call win / lose, and they've only really been defeated once in a year and a half ongoing M&M game).

3. Since PCs will be forced more often to expend their most powerful (per-day) resources quickly just to survive, then the proposed system will not solve the 9-9:15 adventuring day. (My disagreement here is based on my previous disagreement that players naturally lead with their most powerful and valuable resources, which in my experience, they most certainly don't. Instead, they lead with their meat-and-potatoes abilities which, if I'm understanding the previews correctly, will be per-encounter.)

Again, if I'm misunderstanding, please correct me.