Why is it so important?

[Jackelope King]

<snip>

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.​

An important point which had been overlooked. Nice catch.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

Oops, I did it again . . . mostly because I've been accused of stupidity and misrepresentation, so want to take out some insurance.

To repeat my summary of my view, it 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.​

 

[pemerton]

An important point which had been overlooked. Nice catch.

Thanks. I don't know if you've been following the thread that you spun of this one, but howandwhy99 and I have been discussing this simulation thing over there, I think with more success. (Although the thread now seems to have been derailed somewhat . . .)

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

I recall it being specifically suggested in 2e. In fact, it came up so often in 2e that I bought into it for some time, which absolutely destroyed the game I was running.

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).

"Threshold of significance" is significance to enough degree that the aspect in question is affected in a meaningful way. For example, if buying cheese is fun for the PCs, but does not affect the overall story of the game/adventure in a discernable degree, then it fails to meet the story threshold of significance.

Is having 80% of your resources significant? Sure. Is showing off your cool powers interesting? Sometimes. However, unless these things cause some mechanical change, they fail to pass the mechanical threshold of significance.

Perhaps I was unclear on what "threshold of significance" means; I thought it fairly self-evident.

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).

Within the scope of a given encounter, mechanics change as resources are lost, granted. But, unless those mechanical changes represent a clear chance of loss for the PCs, and assuming that they are "undone" after the encounter, why should the players care?

IOW, when there is a clear chance of loss, the mechanical changes are meaningful, and pass the mechanical theshold of significance. When the mechanical changes affect other encounters in a meaningful way, they pass the mechanical theshold of significance. Otherwise, I fail to see a circumstance where they do.

If the focus of the game becomes managing resources within an encounter, that to me implies that each encounter (in general) must therefore make management a significant issue. IOW, there must be a clear chance of loss.

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).

Again, if the only mechanical theshold of significance remains when there is a clear chance of loss, perforce the proposed 4e system increases the reliance on win/lose scenarios beyond what older editions depended upon.

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).

If resource management in each encounter becomes the primary consideration, then useage of powerful resources becomes important. Sure, there are ways that you can design a system to make one pause before using powerful resources (AD&D 1e did this, for example), but that is not what is described in the blog entries that we have seen thus far. If you cannot immediately regain a non-meat-and-potatoes resource, for example, then you are less likely to use it.

But, if I can end the adventuring day, then I can regain the resource, and continue to use it.

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).

The greater the number of win/lose encounters you have, the greater the chance that you will eventually lose. Again, the specifics of the system might pad against this happening, hedging against loss by including safety valves (such as core Action Points). However, the more effective the padding, the more oomph is required to have an actual clear chance of loss, and therefore the more the DM must throw at the group to pass the mechanical theshold of significance.

I feel certain that you understand that choosing to cast a spell instead of swinging a sword may pass the mechanical theshold of significance in a given round (because one precludes the other, for example) without passing the mechanical theshold of significance for the encounter. However, I would imagine that most players would (and do) attach greater significance to those actions that pass the mechanical thesholds of significance of both round and encounter.

Similarly, a battle can pass the mechanical theshold of significance within an encounter, but not within the adventure that the encounter occurs in. Again, I would imagine that most players would (and do) attach greater significance to those actions that pass the mechanical thesholds of significance of both encounter and adventure.

When win/lose becomes the mechanical theshold of significance of the encounter, the odds are pretty good of also passing the MToS of the adventure if you pass the MToS of the encounter. Encounters simply become harder.

Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is. IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. Within the context of a role-playing game, there are many types of loss possible. Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources. (Understand, of course, that I include life, mobility, and so on as "resources" -- a "resource" in this context is anything that you can use to mechanically affect the 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.)

Since PCs in 3e are not forced more often to expend their most powerful (per-day) resources quickly just to survive, then being forced isn't the issue. (Obviously, though, being forced would create an issue.) If I used the word "forced" earlier, it was a bad choice of words. Let me instead say "encouraged".

If I know that I have a significant chance of losing in any given encounter, and no other factor presents itself, I would be an idiot not to use my best abilities to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to use them. I am merely encouraged to use them.

If I know that the everage encounter includes a significant chance of losing, and no other factor presents itself, I would be an idiot not to ensure that I have my best abilities available to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to have them. I am merely encouraged to have them.

Previous editions forced players to factor between these extremes: Is it better to use this now, or save it for a tougher encounter later?

If, OTOH, you can both use it now, and save it for a tougher encounter later, there is no question as to what the prudent course of action is. 3.0 introduced this problem in a big way by making it very easy for PCs to rest, and very difficult for that rest to be believeably (within the context of the system) disturbed. This meant, effectively, that any major resource could be reset after each encounter, leading to the 9-9:15 adventuring day.

The proposed solution (give more resources that automatically regenerate so that the PCs will not have to rest) will not solve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem because:

(1) Unless the non-per-encounter powers are complete throw-aways, they will perforce become more important because they are the only resources targettable to achieve a mechanical theshold of significance greater than that of the combat round.

(2) So long as players experiencing this problem (again in general) both can use their best powers, and can have them back afterwards, they will.

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

I hope that helped.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

(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.)

Here's a question for you: Why do your players lead with their mean-and-potatoes abilities?

 

[hong]

I recall it being specifically suggested in 2e. In fact, it came up so often in 2e that I bought into it for some time, which absolutely destroyed the game I was running.

... because D&D came into existence with 2E, you know.

When win/lose becomes the mechanical theshold of significance of the encounter, the odds are pretty good of also passing the MToS of the adventure if you pass the MToS of the encounter. Encounters simply become harder.

As in, "more fun to play". But for some reason, more fun == bad in the Crowking world.

The proposed solution (give more resources that automatically regenerate so that the PCs will not have to rest) will not solve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem because:

(1) Unless the non-per-encounter powers are complete throw-aways, they will perforce become more important because they are the only resources targettable to achieve a mechanical theshold of significance greater than that of the combat round.

(2) So long as players experiencing this problem (again in general) both can use their best powers, and can have them back afterwards, they will.

The first encounter in a day might cause the 1/day resurrect to get blown. Or it might not.

The first encounter in a day might require the 1/day teleport to get the party the hell out of there. Or it might not.

The first encounter in a day might make the 1/day meteor swarm get pulled out. Or it might not.

It all comes down to the specifics of the encounter, judgement, skill and luck, all of which are random factors to a greater or lesser extent. But for some reason, luck is deterministic in the Crowking world.

 

[Jackelope King]

I hope that helped.

RC

Quite. Let me focus in on one particular point.

Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is. IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. Within the context of a role-playing game, there are many types of loss possible. Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources. (Understand, of course, that I include life, mobility, and so on as "resources" -- a "resource" in this context is anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game.)

Here I'd require more clarification. You define "resources" as "anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game". That seems accurate. However, how would you weigh the impact of conditions on a character? They affect the means by which characters can mechanically affect the game (either positively for buffs or negatively for impairments), but aren't necessarily a resource in and of themselves.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here I'd require more clarification. You define "resources" as "anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game". That seems accurate. However, how would you weigh the impact of conditions on a character? They affect the means by which characters can mechanically affect the game (either positively for buffs or negatively for impairments), but aren't necessarily a resource in and of themselves.

I would say that a "condition" (as defined either in 3.X or in M&M) materially affects resources so long as that condition is in play.

RC

 

[pemerton]

I would imagine that most players would (and do) attach greater significance to those actions that pass the mechanical thesholds of significance of both round and encounter.

<snip>

I would imagine that most players would (and do) attach greater significance to those actions that pass the mechanical thesholds of significance of both encounter and adventure.

I think that this depends entirely on how difficult the round or the encounter in question is for the players to play out, and how it relates to the adventure.

In my games, sometimes it is a particular round that is highly memorable, but mostly it is particular encounters. And their memorability is largely a function of the challenge they posed to the players. Some of these memorable encounters were adventure-shaping ones, but some are essentially side quests.

 

[pemerton]

when there is a clear chance of loss, the mechanical changes are meaningful, and pass the mechanical theshold of significance.

<snip>

If the focus of the game becomes managing resources within an encounter, that to me implies that each encounter (in general) must therefore make management a significant issue. IOW, there must be a clear chance of loss.

<snip>

If resource management in each encounter becomes the primary consideration, then useage of powerful resources becomes important.

<snip>

The greater the number of win/lose encounters you have, the greater the chance that you will eventually lose. Again, the specifics of the system might pad against this happening, hedging against loss by including safety valves (such as core Action Points). However, the more effective the padding, the more oomph is required to have an actual clear chance of loss, and therefore the more the DM must throw at the group to pass the mechanical theshold of significance.

<snip>

When win/lose becomes the mechanical theshold of significance of the encounter, the odds are pretty good of also passing the MToS of the adventure if you pass the MToS of the encounter. Encounters simply become harder.

Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is. IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss.

<snip>

If I know that I have a significant chance of losing in any given encounter, and no other factor presents itself, I would be an idiot not to use my best abilities to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to use them. I am merely encouraged to use them.

It seems clear to me that, in these passages, you are equating "challenging for PCs" with "challenging for players", "powerful PC ability" with "powerful player ability", "loss for the PC" with "loss for the player", etc. In 4e I doubt that these equations will hold.

For example, a PC's most powerful ability might be their meteor swarm, but the players most powerful ability will be their knowledge of the action resolution mechanics, and their capacity to optimise a sequence of decisions within that mechanical framework. An encounter that is challenging (and therefore enjoyable) will be one that taxes this player skill. An encounter may do this without being challenging for the PC (in that, if the player plays well, the PC wins with little chance of loss). And, finally, an encounter which is a loss for the player will be one in which they play poorly, and therefore expose their PC to challenges that they need not have. In such circumstances, the PC may or may not lose, depending on how the dice unfold.

Action Points are essentially orthogonal to this. They are not a "buffer" which creates a need for more "oomph". They are a buffer, but they are a buffer for when the player plays poorly, and wants to save his/her PC from the consequence. In other words, they don't insure against higher numbers (and thus lead to number inflation), but against misplay of complex abilities.

It all comes down to the specifics of the encounter, judgement, skill and luck, all of which are random factors to a greater or lesser extent.

I agree it all comes down to specifics. But I think that, if they are to do their job properly, the per-encounter abilities must make it possible for the players to make their own luck by playing skillfully.