|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 1:00PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2007
|
Looking at the links on the new D&D Next blog post to ENWorld's chat logs of what has been said, I must admit it's really, really cool. I love all the talk about modularization and modules to add to play. There are some wonderful ideas being pushed around, and I do appreciate the holistic approach to design that is being used.
One thing I still wish they could get away from, however, is the phrase "per day." I just don't see why we need arbitrary limiters on power that are based on fictional time. In particular, this quote: "...managing how you those resources work throughout a day and looking at encounters, ... we can look at average encounters a day, how long an average encounter will last, the resources an average character/player will go through and balance that that way." I think this is flawed thinking. I think trying to account for "an average number of encounters" leads only to gaming the system. I think the "15 minute workday" is a real problem and it is born entirely out of the phrase "per day."
I want a better way to balance high-power abilities. I get that some stuff needs to be reserved for the "big" moment, but there has to be a better way to do this other than pretend time. "Per 4 encounters?" That's basically what you're talking about anyway - although, like "per day," that would also lead to gaming the system by trying to fight several small battles to get your number up. Maybe a better way would be to have "charge-like" abilities that you can use. Like, abilities that do less damage but charge up a meter or whatever and then that allows you to unleash the big bomb. That way you're always having to choose between immediate payoff and delayed big payoff.
Obviously I don't know the answer, but I bet it's out there. What can replace "per day?"
Edit:
My thought is that no single replacement for "per day" exists, but a nice mix of several ideas can accomplish it. Some great ideas have come out in this thread. Here are a few:
- balancing powers more toward "encounters" vs. "X encounters per day"
- having some powers "charge up" other powers; for example a minor blast could be used 3 times to throw a major blast; this lends a lot of tactical choice round-by-round as you decide to do something -now- or to build for something later
- having powerful abilites activate or charge on crits; this introduces more randomness and excitment for crits
- having powerful abilites inflict temporary negative consequences on the user, like leaving the user more vulnerable or without an action; this also lends to a lot of tactical choice
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 1:27PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2007
|
Interestingly, there is a great quote at the end of that same article that describes the "charge up" idea above. I think this is a way better mechanic (as a general design idea) than "per day."
Monte: the play session that I envision with the fighter and wizard fighting together is ... The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he was a fighter. Then that happens again on the second round, and the wizard feels the same way again. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 or 20 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, I wish I was a wizard. I want each class to shine and to have reasons to want to play that class.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 1:31PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2006
|
I think it's not the "per day" thing that is the real problem here (but it's not great itself). What the problem is that there is only mechanical upside to resting in the current system. Resting is already pretty in favour of the PCs; their character should choose when to rest, yes? Only makes sense. The problem is, it is always going to be better to rest, rather than press on, when dealing with depleted resources. Especially in a game that expect the level of power that includes said rescoures, it compounds on the fact that resting and getting abilities back is good. Even if it hinders the story, rarely are encounters design to make the characters lose (most are design to challenge the players), and in my experiences, most are will to take the cost of story complecations, rather than character death.
So, you really have two options. The first, remove daily resources. Now, this isn't "D&D", and this isn't going to happen, so I'll just ignore it.
The second, is to give a MECHANICAL reason why the characters should press on. Maybe unlocking powers, maybe bonuses to their at-will abilities when they are the only usable ones. Making them almost as good as they could be if they rested would give them a reason to KEEP going, which makes for a smoother game.
I don't think that'll happen either. It's not "D&D". But...we can hope.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 3:38PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
The second, is to give a MECHANICAL reason why the characters should press on. Maybe unlocking powers, maybe bonuses to their at-will abilities when they are the only usable ones. Making them almost as good as they could be if they rested would give them a reason to KEEP going, which makes for a smoother game.
I don't think that'll happen either. It's not "D&D". But...we can hope.
Actually there is something remotely similar is 4E, whcih is the Action point been awarded per milestone reached, which normally means few fights without an extend rest in between. I'm well aware it is not a great motivation, but it is a start. For instance there could be a deck of cards, like in Gloomwrough but with positive effects, which players are allowed to pick from after few consecutive fights, with the effects fading out upon an extended rest.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 3:57PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
|
I like the idea of a charging mechanic. Hitting x number of times with an at-will, will unlock a "daily" power. If you make the number of required hits, something relatively high like 10, then players will be encouraged to go on to the next encounter without resting, so they can unlock their more powerful attacks. A limited number of healing surges, will force them to take an extended rest at some point, but if they they will always be tempted to push onward, with the temptation of a more powerful attack on the horizon. It also creates a scaling sense of power, over the course of a day, which I think could add a lot of drama.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 5:11PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
Actually there is something remotely similar is 4E, whcih is the Action point been awarded per milestone reached, which normally means few fights without an extend rest in between.
That would be a much better argument if it weren't for the facts that (a) you start the day with an action point, and (b) you can't spend more than one action point per encounter.
The easy fix for daily mechanics is to replace them with an encounter-based mechanic, where daily attack powers simply recover every N encounters.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 5:27PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
|
Actually there is something remotely similar is 4E, whcih is the Action point been awarded per milestone reached, which normally means few fights without an extend rest in between.
That would be a much better argument if it weren't for the facts that (a) you start the day with an action point, and (b) you can't spend more than one action point per encounter.
Exactly. Action points are a very weak motivator. It takes two consecutive encounters to earn another ones. And all it's worth is another action. Refreshing your dailies, healing surges, and HP, is a much bigger motivator, than an extra swing at the monster. And like anthony said, you can only use action points once per encounter. Which means there's no point in saving them up. Doing one encounter per day is still the best strategy. Sure, DMs can discourage it, by various means, but that doesn't eliminate the flaw in the game design.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 5:32PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
Exactly. Action points are a very weak motivator. It takes two consecutive encounters to earn another ones. And all it's worth is another action.
Eh, that's not exactly a small benefit, an action point is probably about as combat significant as a daily (only giving action points to classes that don't have dailies has a certain appeal).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 5:41PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
|
Exactly. Action points are a very weak motivator. It takes two consecutive encounters to earn another ones. And all it's worth is another action.
Eh, that's not exactly a small benefit, an action point is probably about as combat significant as a daily (only giving action points to classes that don't have dailies has a certain appeal).
My group rarely uses them that way. Action points are normally used as a do-over, when they miss an attack. I let them spend action points to re-do enounter powers, if they want. But still, attacking twice doesn't feel as awesome as a daily. Yeah, action points are worth something. But I don't think they're worth enough to sufficiently motivate groups to keep going.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 01, 2012 - 5:55PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2007
|
Obviously I don't know the answer, but I bet it's out there. What can replace "per day?"
The more I think about this issue, the more convinced I become that the correct answer is either "per encounter", or to throw out D&D's traditional system of reckoning time complety, and rebuild it along narrative-structure lines, not a dinural cycle.
This eliminates all of the stupid and artifical limits the system imposes or implies and puts the focus on the pace of the story--and thus in the DM's hands--where it belongs.
If you want to see what this might look like, try the following in 4e: first, eliminate Healing Surges as a discreet mechanic, reducing them to a numerical value for the purposes of power interaction. Second, characters automatically regain full HP during a short rest. Third, characters retain their normal number of Daily powers, but are only allowed to use one per Encounter. The result is a game that moves and feels very different, my removing the greater part of the reason to stop for the "night".
Interestingly, there is a great quote at the end of that same article that describes the "charge up" idea above. I think this is a way better mechanic (as a general design idea) than "per day."
Monte: the play session that I envision with the fighter and wizard fighting together is ... The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he was a fighter. Then that happens again on the second round, and the wizard feels the same way again. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 or 20 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, I wish I was a wizard. I want each class to shine and to have reasons to want to play that class.
Except that's a terrible idea that solves nothing, because there's no incentive for that Wizard to not Fireball every round until he runs out of spells, then force the party to rest, making the Fighter feel useless all the time. Welcome to 3.5.
So, you really have two options. The first, remove daily resources. Now, this isn't "D&D", and this isn't going to happen, so I'll just ignore it.
So playing a Fighter in 3.5 means you're not playing D&D, then? Because Fighters in 3.5 don't have any daily resources.
The second, is to give a MECHANICAL reason why the characters should press on. Maybe unlocking powers, maybe bonuses to their at-will abilities when they are the only usable ones. Making them almost as good as they could be if they rested would give them a reason to KEEP going, which makes for a smoother game.
I don't think that'll happen either. It's not "D&D". But...we can hope.
And if you're going to do this, why bother keeping extended rests at all? In 4e, eliminate extended rests and tie resource refreshment to Milestones instead: every milestone reached give you an AP, and either 1/4 of your healing surges back or allows you to recharge a Daily. Recharging everything (as an extended rest does in 4e default), effectively becomes "between adventures" instead in this mode. Try it sometime; it's actually quite elegant.
-m4ki; one down, one to go "Retro is not new.
Retro-fit is not new."
--Seeker95,
on why I won't be playing DDN
| DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II |
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:
Show
1. Imbalanced gameplay. Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk.
2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy.
3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia.
4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk.
5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world.
NOTE: Items in red have been violated.
Chris Perkins' DM Survival Tips:
Show
1. When in doubt, wing it.
2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow.
3. Sometimes things make the best characters.
4. Always give players lots of things to do.
5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’
6. Cheating is largely unnecessary.
7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy.
8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange.
9. Avoid talking too much.
10. Save some details for later.
11. Be transparent.
12. Don't show all your cards.
Words to live by.
Quotes From People Smarter Than Me:
Show
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials
"Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design
"Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
|
|
|
