Quote from: Sommerjon;561093I think there is like a spell or two that easily gets around this idea.

Like what?  The whole point of 15 minute days is so the MU can remem spells, and now you're suggesting that they use those slots on spells that help them while resting?

That seems a bit circular, in a useless sense.

Quote from: Sommerjon;561089Seems you missed this
"What does this mean for the five-minute adventuring day? DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."

FFS.

There's nothing wrong with working out how much a party can "handle", and there's nothing wrong with telling GM's the numbers. When I buy a game book, I'd expect the designers to tell me as much as they can about the game, and knowing that guideline will help to prevent GM's accidentally throwing too much or too little at the group and ending up with a bad game.

There is everything wrong with that being the core element of your design. If a GM or a party wants to bite off more than the game says they should be able to chew, or more than they feel they can handle, that's their decision. If they pull it off, great, and if they don't, that's great too; that's what happened, they failed (Not lost. Failed. This isn't a competition).

Or to sum up:

Balance guidelines, good.
Balance rules, bad.

Quote from: Sommerjon;561100No it's not.

D&D even back in the precious 1e was based around encounters per day.  Once players got to a certain point they wanted to stop unless through DM wankery 'forcing' them to go on.  Same thing in 2e, 3e, and 4e.  

Good thing AD&D was just reprinted, getting a look at the books that refute this BS should be easy.

AD&D advancement was based largely on the acquisition of treasure. The number of combats you went through to get it could vary from 0 to many.

Quote from: Sommerjon;561100No it's not.

It is the same silly bean-counting, metagame budgeting, framing of game play. The scale is just shifted.

Quote from: Sommerjon;561100D&D even back in the precious 1e was based around encounters per day.

No. The "encounter" as the center-piece of game play is a 2e concept (2e DMG, Chapter 11, "Encounters", p.94). The center-piece of game play in 1e is the "milieu", which means the game world, the set up of the environment, and more specifically as it relates to adventuring, the dungeon and wilderness (and through them, the maps that represent them). The encounter in a 1e sense, in this context, is an organic component of game play that is not planned in advance but occurs as the group proceeds and explores the environment (cf. Encounters, combat and initiative, 1e DMG, p.61). It's the 'encounter' as the actual, common English word implies (i.e. an unexpected meeting of different parties).

Quote from: jeff37923;561101I'm trying to stay positive like you, but it is getting harder as time goes on.

Likewise.

Ok, I am an opinionated fellow.

I don't think the game designers are using 'The Math' correctly.

It's not about how many rounds a party should fight each day.

Where the math matters, is keeping the core game mechanics sound.
For example, you don't want a game where fighters always miss because your math is borked. Missing all the time is not fun.

You don't want a game where enemies always save against a wizards spells.
No fun for the wizard if his spells alwys fail.

You don't (generally) want a game where skill difficulties are set way too high or low.

Some degree of attention to Math is good.

But things like challenge ratings, encounters per day, rounds per battle, etc...are a bad idea. very bad.

That's how I see it.

Quote from: Benoist;561109It is the same silly bean-counting, metagame budgeting, framing of game play. The scale is just shifted.

But it is shifted to a random method.  rounds/day means little when dice get involved.  This is what happens when you use statistics for D&D

Quote from: Benoist;561109No. The "encounter" as the center-piece of game play is a 2e concept (2e DMG, Chapter 11, "Encounters", p.94). The center-piece of game play in 1e is the "milieu", which means the game world, the set up of the environment, and more specifically as it relates to adventuring, the dungeon and wilderness (and through them, the maps that represent them). The encounter in a 1e sense, in this context, is an organic component of game play that is not planned in advance but occurs as the group proceeds and explores the environment (cf. Encounters, combat and initiative, 1e DMG, p.61). It's the 'encounter' as the actual, common English word implies (i.e. an unexpected meeting of different parties).

blah, blah blah.
So what  The players will want to stop when they are depleted of resources  unless they are forced to go on through DM wankery.  You can sit there and pixelbitch about meaning, should fire off a couple synapses.

Quote from: Sommerjon;561123blah, blah blah.

I know. You are actually dumb and don't understand the post. It's cool.

Quote from: Sommerjon;561123So what  The players will want to stop when they are depleted of resources  unless they are forced to go on through DM wankery.  You can sit there and pixelbitch about meaning, should fire off a couple synapses.

And that's basically nonsense that doesn't refute anything I have said.

Well done. You just proved you are a moron talking out of his ass.

Again.

Quote from: Bill;561120Ok, I am an opinionated fellow.

I don't think the game designers are using 'The Math' correctly.

It's not about how many rounds a party should fight each day.

Where the math matters, is keeping the core game mechanics sound.
For example, you don't want a game where fighters always miss because your math is borked. Missing all the time is not fun.

You don't want a game where enemies always save against a wizards spells.
No fun for the wizard if his spells alwys fail.

You don't (generally) want a game where skill difficulties are set way too high or low.

Some degree of attention to Math is good.

But things like challenge ratings, encounters per day, rounds per battle, etc...are a bad idea. very bad.

That's how I see it.

Agreed. Catching and eliminating broken mechanics is good. Trying to make a game that's "DM proof" is a losing proposition. It's impossible anyway, and the excessive effort that goes into putting up guard rails to prevent bad DMs from careening over a cliff means less focus on giving awesome DMs tools that will help them run awesome games.

Quote from: Bill;561120Ok, I am an opinionated fellow.

I don't think the game designers are using 'The Math' correctly.

It's not about how many rounds a party should fight each day.

Where the math matters, is keeping the core game mechanics sound.
For example, you don't want a game where fighters always miss because your math is borked. Missing all the time is not fun.

You don't want a game where enemies always save against a wizards spells.
No fun for the wizard if his spells alwys fail.

You don't (generally) want a game where skill difficulties are set way too high or low.

Some degree of attention to Math is good.

But things like challenge ratings, encounters per day, rounds per battle, etc...are a bad idea. very bad.

That's how I see it.

Quote from: Dimitrios;561125Agreed. Catching and eliminating broken mechanics is good. Trying to make a game that's "DM proof" is a losing proposition. It's impossible anyway, and the excessive effort that goes into putting up guard rails to prevent bad DMs from careening over a cliff means less focus on giving awesome DMs tools that will help them run awesome games.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote from: Bill;561120Ok, I am an opinionated fellow.

I don't think the game designers are using 'The Math' correctly.

It's not about how many rounds a party should fight each day.

Where the math matters, is keeping the core game mechanics sound.
For example, you don't want a game where fighters always miss because your math is borked. Missing all the time is not fun.

You don't want a game where enemies always save against a wizards spells.
No fun for the wizard if his spells alwys fail.

You don't (generally) want a game where skill difficulties are set way too high or low.

Some degree of attention to Math is good.

But things like challenge ratings, encounters per day, rounds per battle, etc...are a bad idea. very bad.

That's how I see it.

I agree.

Quote from: jeff37923;561132Couldn't agree more.

me three

Oh, and Bill?  You said you're a fan of 4e?  Welcome to the site.  You're the kind of person this forum needs more of.  I.e., a fan of a system most people here aren't of, but yet having well thought out and reasonable opinions.  It seems most of the self described 4e fans here are 4vengers, so it's nice to get a reasonable viewpoint of 4e that isn't coming from a fanboi.

Quote from: Sommerjon;561123blah, blah blah.
So what  The players will want to stop when they are depleted of resources  unless they are forced to go on through DM wankery.  You can sit there and pixelbitch about meaning, should fire off a couple synapses.

Have you actually ever read or played AD&D ?

Quote from: Bill;561120Ok, I am an opinionated fellow.

I don't think the game designers are using 'The Math' correctly.

It's not about how many rounds a party should fight each day.

Where the math matters, is keeping the core game mechanics sound.
For example, you don't want a game where fighters always miss because your math is borked. Missing all the time is not fun.

You don't want a game where enemies always save against a wizards spells.
No fun for the wizard if his spells alwys fail.

You don't (generally) want a game where skill difficulties are set way too high or low.

Some degree of attention to Math is good.

But things like challenge ratings, encounters per day, rounds per battle, etc...are a bad idea. very bad.

That's how I see it.

What? You sure you play 4e? Quit trying to inject logic into this conversation.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;561162Have you actually ever read or played AD&D ?

Once a year, which makes him an expert or something.