Why the Encounter Powers hate? (Maneuvers = Encounter)

[bert1000]

Every argument (that I've seen) in favour of AEDU has a counter-argument.
Every piece of descriptive logic (that I've seen) to explain AEDU falls to pieces when examined properly.

For me (and I gather many others...) AEDU makes the RPG into more of an rpG.
.

See my rationale on page 2. If you take Encounter and Daily powers to represent player agency to declare when the combination of skill and environment makes it possible to do the action, then I think it holds up pretty well. It does assume that the in-game reality that the character is experiencing is more than the player experiences but that seems to be a long established tradition in D&D. The player declares "i try to hit the orc with my axe" but the character might be testing defenses, doing footwork, etc. also during that round. A round/turn is an game abstraction that gives you a lot of leeway.

Now, your second point I can't argue against. Your position seems to be that you can tolerate the gamist elements that have historically been there (HP, combat rounds) but it's not D&D enough if previously simulationist abilities become more gamey. Given my rationale, Martial and Daily Encounter powers are very gamist. If you feel that going there is just not your preference for D&D then I hear you -- different strokes...

I'm not sure, however, how you can say that martial Encounter and Daily powers can't make sense under any lens. They can easily make sense if you aren't trying to map them directly to an in-world character centric ability (and these abstractions have a lot of precedent in D&D).

 

[BobTheNob]

My problem is broader (and perhaps beyond the scope of this thread). 3.5 made the encounter the default with its EL system, but 4e took it to extremes, and the medium became the message. I know this wasn't supposed to happen (or maybe it was), but it did - the system encouraged an encounter-after-encounter (actually room-after-room, most of the time) paradigm, with little dynamic interaction between encounters (rooms).

The PCs kill the bad guys; the GM cleans the battlemat; everyone regains their encounter powers; the party moves on to the next room.

Let's get back to the adventure (a living, breathing, dynamic adventure) and avoid the encounter (although admit it will appear as an occasional evil...).

If Han and Luke were using 4e, they could have cleared the Death Star one room at a time...

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

This is also one of dislike column items of 4e. This is a very common complaint, I felt it happening and alot of others did as well.

When you look at encounter powers, they are part of the equation. Im not sure it means that there is no room for recoverable powers though. Im not opposed to a system that would allow caster to regain spells, but "one shot powers" for martialists just sits badly with me.

 

[shadow]

There are a number of reasons that I never liked encounter powers. First of all, they seemed way too "metagame" for my tastes. I never understood why they were limited to once an encounter. The argument that they represented an element of surprise that wouldn't fool the enemy again never made much sense to me since so many powers were supposed to rely on skill an martial prowess, not subterfuge. Still, given that all rules are somewhat of an abstraction and D&D isn't supposed to emulate real life, this is somewhat of a minor complaint.

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.

 

[Zaphling]

Hi guys,

I recently blogged about the house rule that we are yet still going to try with my fellow players. I tried to address the 'fire and forget' part of a martial encounter power. Here's the link

Dee Em’s 4e House Rules (heavily inspired by 13th Age) Ways of The Dee Em

p.s. Please don't flame me on this. I just tried.

 

[Zaphling]

Hi guys,

I recently blogged about the house rule that we are yet still going to try with my fellow players. I tried to address the 'fire and forget' part of a martial encounter power. Here's the link:

Dee Em’s 4e House Rules (heavily inspired by 13th Age) Ways of The Dee Em

p.s. Please don't flame me on this. I just tried.

You can even try to suggest how to fix some stuff, since I stated that some stuff are beyond or too complicated for my house rule.

You are all free to 'steal' these ideas.

 

[BobTheNob]

Hi guys,

I recently blogged about the house rule that we are yet still going to try with my fellow players. I tried to address the 'fire and forget' part of a martial encounter power. Here's the link:

Dee Em’s 4e House Rules (heavily inspired by 13th Age) Ways of The Dee Em

p.s. Please don't flame me on this. I just tried.

You can even try to suggest how to fix some stuff, since I stated that some stuff are beyond or too complicated for my house rule.

You are all free to 'steal' these ideas.

Thats he best thing about house rules. They are yours.

Do I think they will work? Doesnt matter what I think, there your rules, if they work for you, best of luck.

If I might advise one thing. Follow this up with some post play blogging. Let all know how it went.

 

[Campbell]

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.

My experience is that classes actually feel more different in play under 4e than previous versions. While fighters may play more similar to Wizards in 4e, playing a Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Paladin, or Ranger feel dramatically different from one another in play because their abilities and features make them interface with the game and the fiction in radically different ways. Likewise playing a sorcerer feels dramatically different from playing a wizard. In previous versions of the game (3e/PF in particular) there are basically two ways to interface with the game and thus the fiction. Rangers and Fighters feel almost identical. Same goes for spell casters of all stripes.

In 4e Barbarians feel like out of control rage machines. Fighters feel like disciplined combatants who take advantage of every opportunity presented to them. In 3e the Barbarian uses rage and acts just like the Fighter would.

 

[pemerton]

I think that EVERYONE hates that all the classes have the same amount of the same power type on the same level with no chance of reducing/increasing changing them one for another.

I don't hate that. I actually quite like it. It makes PC design much easier, and as a GM it helps me a lot with encounter balance.

I dont really care about the explanation or issues of 'realism'. I just want there to be options where people who want their fighters to have tactical choices in combat and to be able to make strategic decisions about rationing their resources.

Although I know the "that trick only works once on an enemy" rationale it was never the most compelling to me. As other have pointed out, there are too many ways that can break down.

<snip>

The rationale that works for me is that martial encounter abilities are a game mechanic that gives players some agency on the in-game fiction to dictate when the circumstances are "just right" to pull off (or attempt to pull off) a difficult combat move.

<snip>

In my mind the powers/maneuvers are not in-world constructs. So, you don't learn "Steel serpent strike" down at the dojo. It is just a game construct that allows the player to dictate when her character can try to pull off some cool in-fiction move that represents a combination of skill and circumstance

If you take Encounter and Daily powers to represent player agency to declare when the combination of skill and environment makes it possible to do the action, then I think it holds up pretty well. It does assume that the in-game reality that the character is experiencing is more than the player experiences but that seems to be a long established tradition in D&D. The player declares "i try to hit the orc with my axe" but the character might be testing defenses, doing footwork, etc. also during that round. A round/turn is an game abstraction that gives you a lot of leeway.

Many people in my group see encounter powers as an artificially contrived kludge of a mechanic. It simplifies things from a game management perspective but in terms of representing the "game reality" we enjoy, it has a lot of shortfalls.

<snip>

The Elven Accuracy encounter ability. This has nothing to do with the enemy and is more a narrative device for the Elf to have that edge when he needs it.

<snip>

The Warlord's Inspiring Word

<snip>

If I put my believability-gamer hat on, they are are a mechanic that does a poor job of representing many of the actions that utilize this mechanic.

I agree with all these descriptions of encounter powers (though I'm with Raith5 and bert1000 in being on the "like" rather than the "dislike" side).

While the occasional process-simulation rationale (tricks up the sleeve, fatigue, etc) can be made to work from time to time, I don't think it's worth the effort. Encounter powers are a metagame tool, a player resource of the sort bert1000 describes. As Herreman captures well with reference to some particularly obvious cases, they are like delimited Fate Points. The Warlord is always urging his/her friends onward - once or twice per encounter, the player can spend a resource (Inspiring Word) and have that urging have a mechanical effect. The Elf is always shooting or attacking with great accuracy - once per encounter, the player can spend a resource to give that fact about the elf mechanical expression.

I think the comparison to hit points, and "the round", the turn sequence and the action economy within it also makes sense. These are all metagame devices for allocating and rationing resources among the participants in the game.

What I think is most distinctive about encounter powers, compared to hit points, is that they bring the metagame into the "active" rather than the "passive" part of the game - and therefore are not well-suited to those who think that every player decision should correspond to a PC decision. (Because the player's decision to use an encounter power doesn't correspond to any decision by the PC, who is always/I] trying to be inspiring, accurate, etc.)

Hit points, experience etc are obviously game concepts, but adding more and more game concepts isn't helping the role play.

In the same way that it is incumbent on those who like metagame mechanics to recognise that not everyone shares their preferences, so I think it is helpful for those who equate "roleplaying" with "every player decision correlates to a PC decision" to recognise that this is only one, rather narrow, conception of roleplaying within the broader sphere of RPGs. In particular, on this account many contemporary RPGs - HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, etc - come out as undermining roleplaying, which would be odd given that these systems are well known for being some of the most story-intensive RPGs out there.

For an approach to play which sees "roleplaying" as "players using their PCs to engage the fictional situations set up by the GM, so that we all get to see what sort of interesting story falls out", then player metagame resources on the active side can be very helpful for roleplaying.

for D&D to sit under the one tent, it has to carefully decide what is common for all players, and what is best served as an option.

This is true. But I think it also has to be recognised that not all underlying "core" mechanics can support the full range of approaches to play. The use, in the playtest, of spell durations that don't fit nicely within an encounter context (10 minutes is probably at the outer limit, and 1 hour is right out) don't bode especially well.

The fighter's "action surge" ability suggests to me that they will be taking more of an Essentials route and making metagame abilities generic Fate Point sort of stuff (in Essentials, "do extra damage"; for the playtest fighter, "have an extra action") rather than the more interesting and delimited powers seen in the rest of 4e.

Another comment on this, from a different angle: if they are going to have options, they need to be prepared to talk much more frankly than is the tradition in D&D rulebooks about the sort of game experience those options are meant to provide. The 4e rulebooks suffer from being too coy about the role that encounter powers actually play within the game.

AEDU would be a lot less 'in your face' if you could chop and change the powers you used from the ones you knew. Say at around 9th level, you've got 3 encounter powers available. Why not allow the use of the same one 3 times in an encounter? Why force the use of different tricks or expenditures of effort? There's no actual logic behind it.

I anticipate one or more classes, sub-classes, or themes with some manner of Endurance / Stamina / Ki / Power point system that recharges to some extent or another with a Short Rest. Abstract the mechanics to "points" or "slots" rather than linking it specifically to "one use of maneuver A, one use of maneuver B, one use of maneuver C, no refunds or exchanges," it tends paper over some of the immediate "WTF? Did he just forget how to trip somebody?" objections.

This makes encounter powers more like 4e psionics. It facilitates treating encounter powers in a process simulationist way (you used up all your stamina/power points). It can produce problems, though: it reduces the tactical variety that delimited encounter powers produce, and it makes it more important to get the balance right, so that the single best power doesn't just become the default spamming option.

This, combined with forgetting your lower level attack powers, is a big part of why the AEDU just feels unforgivably contrived-- if characters kept all of their powers they learned as they leveled up and had a certain number of 'encounter points' and 'daily points' to spend on them, the whole thing would have felt considerably more natural and probably would have been closer to the effect they were shooting for in the first place.

For the reasons I just gave, I'm not sure that a psionics-style system is actually the best way to achieve the goal of giving all players interesting resource management options, and of making sure that encounters are tactically engaging.

On the retraining point, here is what I said in the campaign document I circulated to my players at the start of our 4e campaign:

The rules for retraining, swapping in new powers, background feats etc, don’t have to be interpreted as literally meaning that your PC has forgotten how to do things or suddenly learned something new. Feel free to treat this as just emphasising a different aspect of your PC that was always there, but hadn’t yet come up in the course of play.​

I seem to remember that OGL Conan has something similar, where you can spend a Fate Point to have your PC "recollect" a foreign language that they speak that hasn't come up yet in play. And I think I've read that Mutants & Masterminds has a somewhat similar system for allowing a hero to manifest a hitherto-unseen super power.

Again, this stuff is all best seen as happening at the metagame level, not the ingame level. And the rules should just be overt about this.

3.5 made the encounter the default with its EL system, but 4e took it to extremes, and the medium became the message. I know this wasn't supposed to happen (or maybe it was), but it did - the system encouraged an encounter-after-encounter (actually room-after-room, most of the time) paradigm, with little dynamic interaction between encounters (rooms).

The PCs kill the bad guys; the GM cleans the battlemat; everyone regains their encounter powers; the party moves on to the next room.

This is just bad adventure design and bad GMing.

It is of the essence of running a situation/encounter oriented game that new scenes are framed having regard (i) to the established fiction of the game, and (ii) to stuff that the players will find interesting, and want to engage via their PCs. If the GM has already got a preset list of encounters, so that the scenes framed (i) won't reflect the prior established fiction (eg that an enemy escaped), and (ii) won't necessarily engag the players with situations that they find interesting, and want to throw their PCs into, then we have a classic railroad.

There are plenty of encounter/situation focused RPGs that give good GMing advice on how to avoid this sort of railroading (HeroQuest revised, Burning Wheel, Maelstrom Storytelling, etc). It's a pity that the 4e DMGs mostly failed on this score.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Another comment on this, from a different angle: if they are going to have options, they need to be prepared to talk much more frankly than is the tradition in D&D rulebooks about the sort of game experience those options are meant to provide. The 4e rulebooks suffer from being too coy about the role that encounter powers actually play within the game.

This is very true. However if you have a look at the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana book that was all about options, there is this exact discussion going on in the myriad of sidebars. These sidebars did an excellent job of discussing the ramifications of the various options and would be a very good reference point for the current R&D team in terms of presenting such options.

And good analysis once again despite us being on different sides of the fence. As usual, I find myself trying to activate the XP button for you but the darn thing works too damn sporadically.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Campbell]

After thinking about it I'm having trouble coming up with mainstream RPGs that completely lack mechanics where player agency doesn't sometimes trump one to one correspondence between player and character decision making.

• RuneQuest is actually filled to the brim with this stuff. Combat maneuvers you don't choose until after the attack and parry/evade are resolved, hero points, heroic abilities.
• Savage Worlds has edges like Scavenging, Natural Leader,No Mercy and of course bennies.
• Even 3e has abilities like Rage, Smite Evil, and Stunning Fist which if taken as a literal character decision seem nonsensical. "I choose to get really really mad and I know I can only get really mad two more times today".
• White Wolf games get around this by inventing fictional justification for what would otherwise be meta mechanics in a lot of other games. It's much easier to justify cool stuff for warriors when everyone is supernatural. Still it doesn't make much sense to me that Vampires literally say to themselves "I'm going to use Dominate meaning I can only use 5 more Vitae before I need to feed again.". Still the games also have scene length durations and spendable Willpower.
• FantasyCraft characters acquire Reputation you can spend on social status, contacts, favors, etc.
• Even GURPS has a Luck advantage you can purchase to be able to make a re-roll once every hour.

Just thought of one - Traveler. I don't remember any meta mechanics whatsoever in Traveler.