Why the Encounter Powers hate? (Maneuvers = Encounter)

[B.T.]

The swinginess of attack rolls.

Wrong thread entirely.

 

[n00bdragon]

I will add this. When essentials came out it's re-think of the existing classes went a long way to addressing this concern. I sometimes wonder with essentials that wotc wasn't thinking the same thing because the way the martial class's got a work over was so damned close to what I was thinking was needed.

This is a very different experience from what I and my group had with Essentials. By the time Essentials rolled around my home group had settled into their characters for several years but when a new character did join you could tell they were passing over the Essentials stuff. It's like it didn't even register as a thing for them. Running a game at the local shop on the side I finally got to see some Essentials characters in action and I understood why. The people playing those classes invariably felt like they just had nothing to do. There were lots of new players in that group who had gone and bought the Heroes of whatever lands booklets as their first introduction to D&D and the moment they saw another guy at the table use a Daily they all said "Hey, that was really cool. When do I get one of those?" So pretty much everyone I've played with has agreed that Essentials feels more like a trial version of "real D&D" as they see it.

This has just been my experience. I personally haven't gotten to play in many games (I am a Forever-DM) so it's all what I see and hear from others but this all comes mainly from playing with mostly people who started D&D with 4e and about one or two grizzled veterans in every group.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My bigger complaint is that powers essentially make all classes mechanically the same. All the sudden, besides Vancian magic, we have Vancian fighters and rogues! Sure the scope and nature of the powers may differ from class to class, but all the classes essentially use the same play mechanics. Some may argue that this standardizes classes so one doesn't have to switch mechanics from class to class - that's true, but I always liked for classes to really "feel different", not just have different selections of powers.

For some reason, the extreme consistency of mechanics was a turn off for me. Maybe it made sense to start there in core, but it seemed that there was room to experiment with other mixes of resources than having but One AEDU Availability Schedule To Rule Them All.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Encounter powers seemed great to us, at first.

 

[B.T.]

Encounter powers seemed great to us, at first.

And then?

 

[Steely_Dan]

And then?

Became disillusioned.

 

[SoldierBlue]

I think you've misunderstood me.

Of course encounter powers are about an encounter-focused game. My point is that, in good encounter-focused RPGing, the content and consequences of the encounters aren't known in advance. And that GMs who plan them out in advance are bad GMs (because railroading).

To reiterate: crucial to a good encounter-based game is that a given encounter/scene is framed in response to, and in light of, what came before (ie not in advance - because what came before can't be known in advance of actual play).

I haven't got my copy of HeroQuest revised in front of me, but look for the discussion of the pass/fail cycle. Each episode in the cycle is an encounter/scene/situation. HeroQuest revised is based around the scene at least as tightly as 4e D&D (apart from other features, the unfolding of the pass/fail cycle directly sets DCs).

As for obscurity, HeroWars/Quest and Burning Wheel aren't especially obscure. They're some of the leading examples of contemporary RPG design. And Robin Laws cut and pasted whole chunks of the HeroQuest revised rulebook into 4e's DMG2. (Including the discussion of the pass/fail cycle.)

I misunderstood you because that isn't what you stated earlier. What you're stating now makes sense, though.

If it comes down to the fact you like an encounter-based game, and I don't, well, then that's merely a matter of taste, and there's nothing there I can criticize you for.

There is one flaw, though. You suggest that a good DM would make PC choices and actions in previous encounters affect subsequent encounters. Again, my earlier argument stands - this is fine for great DMs who can overcome the tendency for the resolution of prior encounters not to affect subsequent ones, but not for most DMs most of the time. As great as the system is (and I do admire it for many things), 4e's focus on the encounter over the adventure means that this tendency is particularly difficult to avoid. Certainly published adventure modules have done little to dissuade me of this.

Encounter powers, in the hands of the average-ability DM, encourages a system whereby encounters exist as hermetically-sealed boxes, with little interaction between them or really there being much effect that actions in one encounter might have on another. You might avoid that because, by all evidence, you're a great DM, but that doesn't mean the tendency of the game to push most DMs most of the time in that direction isn't there.

(I need to caveat this - 3e encouraged this also - not by way of encounter powers, but with its focus on EL.)

I know back in May 2008, I was pretty pumped about encounter powers, but soon noted the tendency for them to cause play to focus on individual encounters versus a wholistic adventure. I don't see this problem with at-wills (which should be known simply as "attacks") or with dailies, because both don't make the encounter as grossly explicit.

In our limited playtest, 5e appears to move admirably away from this tendency. Time will tell...

I have to admit, though, your descriptions make me want to play at your table.

Play On, Gamer Nation!

 

[pemerton]

by all evidence, you're a great DM

<snip>

your descriptions make me want to play at your table.

That's very kind of you to say so.

You suggest that a good DM would make PC choices and actions in previous encounters affect subsequent encounters. Again, my earlier argument stands - this is fine for great DMs who can overcome the tendency for the resolution of prior encounters not to affect subsequent ones, but not for most DMs most of the time.

<snip>

Certainly published adventure modules have done little to dissuade me of this.

<snip>

You might avoid that because, , but that doesn't mean the tendency of the game to push most DMs most of the time in that direction isn't there.

I'n not going to defend WotC's published modules. They're bad - and they're doubly made because they have elements that could make them good (here is a link to the changes I made to two parts of H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth, to take better advantage of its nice maps and interesting NPCs).

But I think running dynamic and responsive encounters is not as hard as the D&D approach sometimes makes it. I tend to find it's all about the right tools and techniques. The first book that really taught me how to do this was the original Oriental Adventures when it came out - because with its rules for family, and honour, it created links and relationships connecting the PCs into the gameworld on which encounters could be fairly easily hung. They didn't have to be very heavy and detailed in their upfront engineering, becasue the PCs own hooks made it comparatively easy for me, as a GM, to come up with interesting and relevant and responsive stuff on the fly.

The other approach I've found helfpful is one found in modules ranging from the old B module Night's Dark Terror to most of the ICE Rolemaster modules to Eden Odyssey's d20 module Wonders Out of Time - modules that focus on setting and character that are laden with situation, but don't prescribe the precise situation and sequence for play. Combined with strong PC hooks, these tend to allow a more dynamic approach.

I think it would be good if WotC tried harder in contemporary D&D material to put forward these sorts of approaches to adventure/scenario design. (Caves of Chaos doesn't have sequence, but I don't think it's pregnant with situation. The medusa, I think, is a bit underdeveloped, for example.)

 

[B.T.]

Became disillusioned.

Why?

 

[SoldierBlue]

That's very kind of you to say so.

I'n not going to defend WotC's published modules. They're bad - and they're doubly made because they have elements that could make them good (here is a link to the changes I made to two parts of H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth, to take better advantage of its nice maps and interesting NPCs).

But I think running dynamic and responsive encounters is not as hard as the D&D approach sometimes makes it. I tend to find it's all about the right tools and techniques. The first book that really taught me how to do this was the original Oriental Adventures when it came out - because with its rules for family, and honour, it created links and relationships connecting the PCs into the gameworld on which encounters could be fairly easily hung. They didn't have to be very heavy and detailed in their upfront engineering, becasue the PCs own hooks made it comparatively easy for me, as a GM, to come up with interesting and relevant and responsive stuff on the fly.

The other approach I've found helfpful is one found in modules ranging from the old B module Night's Dark Terror to most of the ICE Rolemaster modules to Eden Odyssey's d20 module Wonders Out of Time - modules that focus on setting and character that are laden with situation, but don't prescribe the precise situation and sequence for play. Combined with strong PC hooks, these tend to allow a more dynamic approach.

I think it would be good if WotC tried harder in contemporary D&D material to put forward these sorts of approaches to adventure/scenario design. (Caves of Chaos doesn't have sequence, but I don't think it's pregnant with situation. The medusa, I think, is a bit underdeveloped, for example.)

That is so cool that you cited "Night's Dark Terror" - I remember that module as one that really advanced the sophistication of exactly what you and I are talking about - making D&D feel more like "Fellowship of the Ring" and less like a boardgame. About 25 years ago, my friend took the huge fort map from the module and put it on his wall (it came down in time for the girlfriend years, I think...)

Same with Rolemaster - I never played it (I have it, and can't understand it), but I did GM MERP, which was really Rolemaster-lite (which still means it was incredibly complicated). In the few times I GM'd it, though, it seemed to give GMs the ability to run a more narrative adventure (and less "gamist", I suppose, to use the lingo) while still being sophisticated. I'm always a little alarmed at those who equate a more narrative, dynamic game with a simpler game - not so.

I really believed in the promise of 4e to do those sorts of things; DMG p. 42 seemed ideal for me to the do sorts of things I wanted to do. But the encounter powers (amongst other things) meant the game tended (but not necessarily ensured, as you've eloquently indicated) towards a paradigm of encounter-after-encounter play.

And, to reiterate, I don't see the same problem with at-wills or dailies.

As I've said elsewhere, if Han and Luke had encounter powers, they could have cleared the Death Star one room at a time...

Anyway, anytime you're in Western Canada, we're dragging you in to DM for us. I like your style.

Cheers!

And as always, Play What You Want, Gamer Nation!