Why is it so important?

[Jackelope King]

No worries. The funny thing is that the post I wrote that in had screwed up formatting, forcing me to go back & edit it!

Curse you and your law, Murphy!

As I have said, there are many ways to introduce cost to the use of resources. I see no sign that WotC is going this route, and hence my concern. If I am wrong, and there is inherent cost, then I'll be much happier. Remember, going back to the beginning, I argued that Wyatt's claim was wrong because without addressing cost for the use of resources, you cannot resolve the 15-minute adventuring day problem.


Correct, just as swinging a sword has less of a cost in 3e than casting magic missile in 3.x.


Which is why the 15-minute adventuring day is described as a problem, rather than as the Woo-Hoo Fun Goodtime by those who experience it. Of course, some prefer to make one big fight using all per-day resources essentially as one giant per-encounter resource. While I can see that this would sometimes be fun, I wouldn't care to do it all of the time, because it would be narrowing the decision-making process considerable (IMHO).

However, I still don't see how this follows. You're essentially arguing that so long as players can control how they regain resources, it follows that they'll be encouraged to nova. Remember that if you argue that the cost for resting for 8 hours is low, then the cost for resting for 1 minute is even lower, reducing the desire for a 15-minute day on one side. On the other side, you have a shallowing of nova-ripe resources. If, under the traditional system, a caster who went nova spent 50% of his resources in an encounter and decided to rest, this system might only allow such a caster to spend 20% of his resources. The wizard simply doesn't have all the resources to spend on an encounter to go nova (which will also bring wizards in-line with non-casters). And recall points made earlier about the game refocusing on a single combat: if more focus is put here and on the fundamental resource of actions (as we've seen in Mearls' Iron Heroes and Saga Edition), more emphasis is put on delaying and using actions judiciously, which further confounds the nova mindset.

You are arguing, essentially, that nova-ing is the primary cause of the 15-minute adventuring day (ie it being idiotic not to spend your best resources first if the cost to regain them was only resting 8 hours, which you and players who like going nova don't consider to be a cost at all but apparently many others of us do). From what I've seen, nova-ing is being nipped in the bud here, making it a less attractive option and thus further reducing the 15-minute adventuring day.

So essentially, will there still be a segment of hard-core nova-players who will continue the tradition of the 15-minute adventuring day? Sure. But in my experience, nova-ing is far from the majority of players.

Indeed, there are game mechanics whereby the "characters can indeed be victorious but suffer attrition" -- every edition of D&D thus far has had them. However, the fact that the designers are intentionally removing the conditions whereby characters suffered attrition in previous editions makes me a lot less hopeful as to how the new edition will play. Moreover, if the conditions imposed by combat can be rested away, and there is no cost for resting, then it will be exactly as though the conditions were not imposed in the first place.

The cost for resting is time, as we've already said. And the threshold at which groups rest is different from one group to another. It's a cost that groups are willing to pay when their resources drop below a certain threshold. If a group normally rests when reduced below 50% resources, and under 4e they can always mobilize 80% of their resources, there is less of an encouragement by the system to rest after 15 minutes of adventuring.

The designers are reducing one type of attrition which is not supported by the genre ("I ran out of spells") and emphasizing it elsewhere. If conditions are indeed unified as in SE under a condition chart, and if they are indeed tied to HP damage the way previews have suggested, then they'll be more widespread than usual.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're essentially arguing that so long as players can control how they regain resources, it follows that they'll be encouraged to nova.

No -- I am arguing that the principle that unless there is a cost to regaining resources, one does not have a motive to conserve them, coupled with the idea that it is always better to regain resources when possible, leads directly to the 15-minute adventuring day. Therefore, a cost to regaining resources must exist to prevent the continual use-reset formula that is the 15-minute adventuring day.

The cost for resting 1 minute is only lower than the cost for resting for 8 hours if there is some distinct difference in cost between the two.

So essentially, will there still be a segment of hard-core nova-players who will continue the tradition of the 15-minute adventuring day? Sure. But in my experience, nova-ing is far from the majority of players.

My argument is that the same groups that have this problem now are likely to have them in 4e. I agree that we are not talking about the majority of players, and that the threshold at which groups rest is different from one group to another.

However, the idea that "If a group normally rests when reduced below 50% resources, and under 4e they can always mobilize 80% of their resources, there is less of an encouragement by the system to rest after 15 minutes of adventuring" is true only if the average encounter doesn't dip into that extra 20% of resources. If it does, then the threshold at which groups rest would be adjusted to avoid risking an average encounter without that 20%.

But, we shall see when the time comes, I suppose.


RC

 

[IanArgent]

No -- I am arguing that the principle that unless there is a cost to regaining resources, one does not have a motive to conserve them, coupled with the idea that it is always better to regain resources when possible, leads directly to the 15-minute adventuring day. Therefore, a cost to regaining resources must exist to prevent the continual use-reset formula that is the 15-minute adventuring day.

Do you believe that the player of a wizard with access to Meteor Swarm will demand that the party rest once he expends it, even if he still has all of his Fireballs available?

I would say not. Switching to a primarily encounter-based resource managements system means, in part, that the wizard (at an appropriate level) will have access to Fireball at a per-encounter level, while his Meteor Swarm is a per-day resource. (Spells chosen for example only).

If the group does run into a situation where the party rests after only blowing off their top level of spells, there's a problem that game mechanics cannot solve.

 

[Jackelope King]

No -- I am arguing that the principle that unless there is a cost to regaining resources, one does not have a motive to conserve them, coupled with the idea that it is always better to regain resources when possible, leads directly to the 15-minute adventuring day. Therefore, a cost to regaining resources must exist to prevent the continual use-reset formula that is the 15-minute adventuring day.

The cost for resting 1 minute is only lower than the cost for resting for 8 hours if there is some distinct difference in cost between the two.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "cost" here. To clarify, what sort of cost would you apply to resting to make it appropriate, were you facing this problem?

Do you believe that the player of a wizard with access to Meteor Swarm will demand that the party rest once he expends it, even if he still has all of his Fireballs available?

I would say not. Switching to a primarily encounter-based resource managements system means, in part, that the wizard (at an appropriate level) will have access to Fireball at a per-encounter level, while his Meteor Swarm is a per-day resource. (Spells chosen for example only).

If the group does run into a situation where the party rests after only blowing off their top level of spells, there's a problem that game mechanics cannot solve.

I think the problem here is that Raven assumes that groups suffering from the 15-minute adventuring day have nova-type players. What I think Raven fails to realize is that the 15-minute adventuring day, as it is now, also plagues groups who fight their way through three or four encounters and then call it a day, even though those encounters only took 15 minutes in-game (which is admittedly an exaggeration, but I know that during more encounter-heavy adventures, it isn't uncommon to see a party camping every day by noon). These are the groups who will benefit.

 

[Reynard]

I think the problem here is that Raven assumes that groups suffering from the 15-minute adventuring day have nova-type players. What I think Raven fails to realize is that the 15-minute adventuring day, as it is now, also plagues groups who fight their way through three or four encounters and then call it a day, even though those encounters only took 15 minutes in-game (which is admittedly an exaggeration, but I know that during more encounter-heavy adventures, it isn't uncommon to see a party camping every day by noon). These are the groups who will benefit.

This underscores oneof the elements that gives rise to the "resting at 9:15" nonesense -- the time scale in 3.x is grossly underestimated. Even forgiving six second rounds -- which totaly fly in the face of the abstract D&D combat system, with hit points and AC and such -- there was a reason a turn was 10 minutes in 1E and 2E. it takes a long time to figure out where you are going in an unfamilair, often dark environment. Ever go "exploring" in an old warehouse or hospital or similar place. It takes a long time. You are looking at stuff. You're being careful. You get turned around. Things are uncertain. Now, throw in the fact that there is actually stuff in there that wants to kill you and there's very likely to be valuable stuff hidden in the crannies and crevaces, and you are talking a very involved kind of exploration. For being "back to the dungeon" -- which, don't get me wrong, I appreciate after 2E's complete failure to even mention them in the DMG -- 3E didn't thinka whole lot about them outside of the monsters, doors and traps paradigm.

But this is the same issue that comes up again and again -- exploration does not seem to be part of the game design or the playstyle much anymore. Of course you are going to be through 4 encounters by noon if there are only room after room of challenges broken down into 6 second increments. Dead ends, uncrossable chasms, mazes, side passages and mini dungeons -- these were all hallmarks of D&D that have been forgotten. Of course people fele the game has to change, because it was designed to do something different than it has been being used for.

The problem, for me anyway, is that the way it was intended is far superior an experience and far more fun a game. Not only that, I *can* do old school in 3E, I just have to be aware of the differences in design and account for them. The design goal of 4E, between the encounter based resources and the dungeons-as-gauntlets paradigm, seems to be putting the nail in the coffin of old school play, which might not have been the default of 3E but was certainly possible and even supported (prior to late 3.5/transition to 4E).

 

[IanArgent]

You think 6-second rounds are bad? Try GURPS 1 second rounds (also found in other SJ products such as Car Wars).

OTOH, I don't find 6 second rounds to be terribly cramped - I've both fenced and wrested in high school, so I am more than aware of how much you can do in 6 seconds...

 

[pemerton]

Well, that's one way to handle cognitive dissonance, I guess.

I've lost track of who is handling whose dissonance.

 

[pemerton]

The cost for resting 1 minute is only lower than the cost for resting for 8 hours if there is some distinct difference in cost between the two.

This is true, but I think tautologous - the "distinct difference" in cost would be the lower cost of 1 minute compared to 8 hours.

A little more constructively: you appear (in this an many other posts) to be looking only at the in-game cost, to the PCs. The important cost to focus on is the at-table cost, to the players. Because 8 hours of rest requires retracing steps, making camp, setting a watch etc it has a signficantly greater cost to the players in game-time spent.

I am arguing that the principle that unless there is a cost to regaining resources, one does not have a motive to conserve them, coupled with the idea that it is always better to regain resources when possible, leads directly to the 15-minute adventuring day.

For many playing groups, the cost of resting is the tedium it introduces into play. If the players think that if their PCs go on without resting they will not incur unacceptable risk, then their PCs will go on.

My argument is that the same groups that have this problem now are likely to have them in 4e.

There are two reasons to think that that is not so, and that the pressures that lead to the 15-minute day will be absent:

1) With per-encounter abilities, the player of the wizard has less incentive to "go nova", because s/he can act meaninguflly every round without having to use up the vast bulk of his/her PC's resources;

2) With well-designed suites of per-encounter abilities, it will be possible to engage in mechanically interesting play which does not require use of per-day resources, and does not lead to win/lose encounters that would generate pressure for the use of those resources.​

The result of this will be that groups of players - incuding those who currently experience the 15-minute day - will be able to enjoy meaningful encounters without using their per-day resources (and thus without feeling any need to rest) and will be able to proceed even once their per-day resources have been consumed and still be confident that they are capable of engaging in mechanically interesting encounters, without incurring unacceptable risks to their PCs. Contributing to this willingness to go on will be a desire, by many groups, to avoid the tedium that resting induces for the players, at the table.

the idea that "If a group normally rests when reduced below 50% resources, and under 4e they can always mobilize 80% of their resources, there is less of an encouragement by the system to rest after 15 minutes of adventuring" is true only if the average encounter doesn't dip into that extra 20% of resources. If it does, then the threshold at which groups rest would be adjusted to avoid risking an average encounter without that 20%.

That is true. See (2) above for a brief explanation of why there is no reason to think that the average (typical) encounter should do so. (I should add that (2) depends entirely on drawing the distinction I made earlier between "challenging for the players" and "challenging for the PCs".)

But, we shall see when the time comes, I suppose.

Undoubtedly. The key question is whether per-encounter abilities are designed so as to ensure that (2) above is true, and that players can avoid the tedium of resting without (a)exposing their PCs to unacceptable risk, and (b) being stuck with only mechanically uninteresting encounters. I think that this is what James Wyatt has in mind when talking about well-designed suites of powers.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Do you believe that the player of a wizard with access to Meteor Swarm will demand that the party rest once he expends it, even if he still has all of his Fireballs available?

If the average encounter is one in which he needs Meteor Swarm? Absolutely.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "cost" here. To clarify, what sort of cost would you apply to resting to make it appropriate, were you facing this problem?

We've already discussed a number of types of "cost" for resting. You can use story costs (ex., "At noon the X will kill the Y, so we can't rest now", or the poison gas in Secret Shrine of Tomachan [sp?] that kills you if you don't escape the dungeon in X hours). However, constant use of story costs strikes some (including myself) as heavy-handed. You can use mechanical costs (resting more than X times in Y space of time has mechanical disadvantage Z). You can use verisimilitude costs (characters simply are not tired/wandering monsters may come).

I'm sure there are many, many more examples of costs that can be used.

I think the problem here is that Raven assumes that groups suffering from the 15-minute adventuring day have nova-type players. What I think Raven fails to realize is that the 15-minute adventuring day, as it is now, also plagues groups who fight their way through three or four encounters and then call it a day, even though those encounters only took 15 minutes in-game (which is admittedly an exaggeration, but I know that during more encounter-heavy adventures, it isn't uncommon to see a party camping every day by noon). These are the groups who will benefit.

For reasons outlined already I believe that the structure thus far revealed for 4e is going to encourage nova-ing more than 3.X does. Having to rest after 3-4 encounters is not, IMHO, greatly different than having to rest after one.

If you follow the CR/EL guidelines, you should certainly be able to have more than 3-4 encounters, because not every encounter will be of APL or over. I myself am capable of running a game with far more than 3-4 encounters, using unmodified 3.0 or 3.5, that is fun and challenging to my players. Yet, it seems common (and the Interweb may exaggerate how common it is!) that many groups cannot do so.

Why?

Because they eschew the lower-than-APL encounters for the "exciting" APL or higher encounters. This uses up resources quickly. It is, in fact, a "slow nova" effect.

APL or higher encounters are only more exciting than other encounters if your main determinant of excitement in these encounters is the mechanical one. Otherwise, you can easily have dozens of exciting encounters each day using other thesholds of significance.

If you are only exciting by encounters in 3.x that reach a certain mechanical theshold of significance, what are the odds that you are going to be exciting for long by encounters 4e that fail to reach even that mechanical theshold of significance?

To make encounters exciting for these groups, it will not take long for them to need to use Meteor Swarm, even though they could use Fireball in every encounter. Rather than 3-4 encounters before resting, they'll be going 1-2 encounters. And, if combat is streamlined, that will take a lot less game time (we can only hope).

(NOTE: We are already hearing complaints that fighting mooks in the SW: SAGA system is too easy.)

Hence, I don't believe that these groups will benefit in the long term.


RC