Quote from: deadDMwalking;561865While these numbers are pulled out of my ass, it is a mathematical fact that on average, there will be more days with a single encounter than days with 4 or more encounters.  UNLESS the rules specifically MAKE the DM run multiple encounters, which is retarded.  There are lots of reasons why PCs would only fight once in a given day.

I don't agree that it is a mathematical fact.  Given the DM's degree of control, it is easy for a DM to arrange for there never be one encounter per day.  If there is ever one encounter, the DM can always throw in another one.  

However, I do agree that the game should still work if the PCs are in situations where they have only one encounter in a day.  There are a lot of situations both realistically and in reasonable fantasy fiction where characters would only be in a single fight in a given day.

Since when is nut sucking a bad thing?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;561865This type of math, in an effort to succeed on a 'number of rounds' basis, is inherently going to fail -unless everyone is the same.

I don't agree at all.  They don't have to be the same, but there has to be some kind of expected baseline instead of the absurd variability in the performance of characters that existed in 3e where one sword swinger could down a like-level monster in 2-3 rounds on average and another in 10+.

4e's problem with 'sameness' isn't even from the performance similarity.  The Ranger is hands down the best Striker in the game, and nothing even comes close.  The problem is that several other Striker classes feel like the Ranger because they have the same AECU power schedule, and a ton of Damage+Generic Rider abilities (and Strikers are probably the 'role' in 4e has the most differentiation of playstyle at that).

QuoteIf you presume that a Fighter is going to be 'good' for 25 round of combat per day, and your Fighter has an AC 5 higher or 5 lower than expected, you will greatly increase the number of rounds or decrease the number of rounds.  

If the fluctuation between 'best' and 'worst' is relatively narrow and is normally distributed there won't be a problem, because you balance the game around the average.  People who are power gamers, and like to optimize their characters should see an advantage in that, going further than the 'average' party, while players who aren't into that at all shouldn't find the game unplayable.

QuoteSince they're so bad at math, it's no surprise that they misunderstand why they're bad at math.

Further, the party is supposed to be a 'flexible' unit of game play.  Some parties will have 5 members, some will have 3.  Some will have two clerics, some will have two wizards.  This level of variation fundamentally changes the way the game works - and they don't seem to recognize it.  

I think they understand the problem but don't have the right people to fix it.  I'd hazard to guess if I checked the CV of WotC's staff I find a lot of English majors and few or no STEM majors, which is why the math still wasn't right in 4e for simple things like how much +to hit characters should have, right at launch.  Creating a game like 3e that is balanced would be incredibly difficult.  The more combinations and options you introduce the more checking and play testing is required, but it's not an unsolvable problem.

QuoteBut if a particular monster is supposed to go 6 rounds with a party of 4, how many rounds will it go with a party of 6?  4 rounds?  2 rounds?  

You present this as if it is a fundamentally isn't a resolvable equation.  I don't see why you wouldn't be able to create an equation that scales within a finite number of possibilities.  Perhaps it would be an issue with figuring out the math for what should challenge 60 players, but I don't see why it would be even mathematically difficult (for people who do this professionally and are paid to figure it out 40 hours a week+) for a party 50% larger than the typical party.

QuoteEvery day that has encounters has at least 1 encounter by definition.  But every day that has an encounter isn't required to have a second encounter.  Even if 90% of days that have an encounter have a second encounter, a reasonable portion of adventuring days are limited to only a single encounter - and that would benefit the wizards.  And among those days that have two encounters, perhaps only 50% of them have a third encounter.  While these numbers are pulled out of my ass, it is a mathematical fact that on average, there will be more days with a single encounter than days with 4 or more encounters.  UNLESS the rules specifically MAKE the DM run multiple encounters, which is retarded.  There are lots of reasons why PCs would only fight once in a given day.

In every edition of D&D, a single encounter with full HP and spell allotment is basically trivial excluding 'boss' fights, with high level Rocket Tag mechanics.

In every edition of D&D the game is designed so a party can survive a single normal encounter, and so long as the game is designed around resources that replenish on an 8 hour rest cycle (or longer with HP, and longer with spells in 1e) you are going to have the same attrition based combat.

I also don't see how it is mathematically insurmountable to scale an encounter from being approximately expected to tax a party 1/5 of their resources to one that taxes them 4/5 or more of their resources if you did want a single tough encounter before the next rest.

I understand the gist of Mearls' article well enough.

One of the most highest rated posts on Enworld in the past 5 years concerns the proposals to switch the next edition's 'core unit' of design (that you design around which, that you design for) from the encounter to the adventure. I think KamikazeMidget posted that. You can easily find it on Enworld.

All that Mearls is doing is making a solid selection of such posts, and then saying yes, 5E will cater to them.

The rest of the article is to speak about 'doing the math right' (another thing that sits well with forum frequenters, and why not?): where it goes wrong is in ramming the two ideas together.

Core design = the adventure day
core design needs to get the math right
-----
Conclusion: let's quantify the adventuring day.

I would have thought 4E spoke loud and clearly just how much goes wrong when you run these two thoughts (premises) together. I do agree that a good mathematical base is indispensable for a game; the core engine needs to work. But how that core engine engages with the rest of the system/game is a lot more open. I can't say anything intelligently about that, without replicating my thoughts about GMT's 'Virgin Queen' over on Boardgamegeek.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/821193/a-worthy-sequel-to-here-i-stand

(Sorry for the plug; feel free to ignore if you have no interest in contemporary wargames.)

Quote from: Mistwell;561990Since when is nut sucking a bad thing?

Go suck some nuts and report back.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;561865Every day that has encounters has at least 1 encounter by definition.  But every day that has an encounter isn't required to have a second encounter.  Even if 90% of days that have an encounter have a second encounter, a reasonable portion of adventuring days are limited to only a single encounter - and that would benefit the wizards.  And among those days that have two encounters, perhaps only 50% of them have a third encounter.  While these numbers are pulled out of my ass, it is a mathematical fact that on average, there will be more days with a single encounter than days with 4 or more encounters.

Hey, ass-pulling numbers sounds like fun.

Let's say that after any given encounter there's a 90% chance that the PCs will push on for another: So 10% of days will have one encounter, 19% will have two encounters, 27% will have three encounters, 34% will have four encounter, 41% will have five encounters, 47% will have six encounters, 53% will have seven encounters, 57% will have eight encounters.

Furthermore, let's say that five encounters is the magic number: Once you hit the fifth encounter, the wizard stops being the most useful participant in the encounter and the fighters become the most useful participants instead.

Breaking these numbers down further we can see that:

1 encounter day (0.10) = 1 wizard encounter
2 encounter day (0.09) = 2 wizard encounters
3 encounter day (0.08) = 3 wizard encounters
4 encounter day (0.07) = 4 wizard encounters
5 encounter day (0.07) = 4 wizard encounters, 1 fighter encounter
6 encounter day (0.06) = 4 wizard encounters, 2 fighter encounter
7 encounter day (0.05) = 4 wizard encounters, 3 fighter encounter
8 encounter day (0.04) = 4 wizard encounters, 4 fighter encounters

Now, what can we learn from this?

Absolutely nothing. Because it's all bullshit I just pulled out of thin air. Just like you did.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;562500Hey, ass-pulling numbers sounds like fun.

Let's say that after any given encounter there's a 90% chance that the PCs will push on for another: So 10% of days will have one encounter, 19% will have two encounters, 27% will have three encounters, 34% will have four encounter, 41% will have five encounters, 47% will have six encounters, 53% will have seven encounters, 57% will have eight encounters.

Furthermore, let's say that five encounters is the magic number: Once you hit the fifth encounter, the wizard stops being the most useful participant in the encounter and the fighters become the most useful participants instead.

Breaking these numbers down further we can see that:

1 encounter day (0.10) = 1 wizard encounter
2 encounter day (0.09) = 2 wizard encounters
3 encounter day (0.08) = 3 wizard encounters
4 encounter day (0.07) = 4 wizard encounters
5 encounter day (0.07) = 4 wizard encounters, 1 fighter encounter
6 encounter day (0.06) = 4 wizard encounters, 2 fighter encounter
7 encounter day (0.05) = 4 wizard encounters, 3 fighter encounter
8 encounter day (0.04) = 4 wizard encounters, 4 fighter encounters

Now, what can we learn from this?

Absolutely nothing. Because it's all bullshit I just pulled out of thin air. Just like you did.

So you agree with me then that it's all bullshit?  It's whatever you say goes at your table, correct?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;562500Hey, ass-pulling numbers sounds like fun.

Let's say that after any given encounter there's a 90% chance that the PCs will push on for another: So 10% of days will have one encounter, 19% will have two encounters, 27% will have three encounters, 34% will have four encounter, 41% will have five encounters, 47% will have six encounters, 53% will have seven encounters, 57% will have eight encounters.

Furthermore, let's say that five encounters is the magic number: Once you hit the fifth encounter, the wizard stops being the most useful participant in the encounter and the fighters become the most useful participants instead.

Breaking these numbers down further we can see that:

1 encounter day (0.10) = 1 wizard encounter
2 encounter day (0.09) = 2 wizard encounters
3 encounter day (0.08) = 3 wizard encounters
4 encounter day (0.07) = 4 wizard encounters
5 encounter day (0.07) = 4 wizard encounters, 1 fighter encounter
6 encounter day (0.06) = 4 wizard encounters, 2 fighter encounter
7 encounter day (0.05) = 4 wizard encounters, 3 fighter encounter
8 encounter day (0.04) = 4 wizard encounters, 4 fighter encounters

Now, what can we learn from this?

Absolutely nothing. Because it's all bullshit I just pulled out of thin air. Just like you did.

Indeed. Yet another total crap argument built out of a completely broken brand of "logic".

I actually don't think DeadDM is that dumb, though. I think he thinks we are complete morons.

What's next?  You going to tell me my game is "Marley May I"?

Quote from: Marleycat;562505What's next?  You going to tell me my game is "Marley May I"?

The denners already told you so in the Wizards v. Fighter thread. If you're not playing strictly by the rules, then you play "magical tea party" and "mother may I", aka "Marley may I".

More generally, here are my observations based on actual play:

(1A) In the absence of all other considerations, the PCs will generally extend an adventuring day until they have expended their resources to "capacity". How they define "capacity" will generally depend on the group, but it can be generally summarized as "they'll keep adventuring until they don't feel like the next encounter is a sure-thing".

(1B) As the urgency of their goals increase, the players will generally increase the number of encounters they're willing to seek out.

(1C) The more dangerous each individual encounter is, the more conservative the players will become in the number of encounters they're willing to seek out.

(2A) The more control the PCs have over the number of encounters they face, the more likely it is that they'll burn strategic resources early and often.

(2B) Conversely, the less control the PCs have over the number of encounters they face, the more likely it becomes that they'll conserve their strategic resources.

(3A) The less knowledge the PCs have about the types of encounters they might be facing, the more likely it becomes that they'll conserve their strategic resources.

(3B) The opposite is not necessarily true: In the presence of "perfect" information, the PCs will conserve their strategic resources for the most difficult encounters.

(3C) But if the PCs have perfect knowledge of their encounters and they're all of equal difficulty, there's no need to conserve their strategic resources and they'll blow through them quickly.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the screen:

(A) DMs who want every encounter to be "important" or "exciting" or something like that will generally ramp up the difficulty level of every encounter. This triggers 1C and results in the player's reaching capacity under 1A in fewer encounters (result in a denser use of strategic resources in each encounter).

This also triggers 3C, of course. Furthermore, since the DM is always pushing the group to the limit he can't increase the pace of encounters without TPKing the group. This triggers 2A.

It's a perfect storm for overpowering the characters who control strategic resources.

Or, to sum up: When every encounter is the most important encounter, there are no strategic considerations. Ergo, strategic resources are pointless.

And because strategic resources tend to "blow up" encounters, the DM will respond by further increasing the difficulty of each encounter. The problem death spirals its way up until it's entered a worst case scenario.

(B) If you increase the amount of time each combat encounter takes to resolve (as 4E did), this encourages the DM to make sure that each encounter is "important" or "exciting" (since so much time is being spent on it).

So they ramp up the difficulty. This typically increases the length of time it takes for an encounter to resolve, which increases the motivation to make each encounter "important" and "exciting". The result, of course, is another death spiral.

If the only negative artifact of this was the need to abolish the strategic aspect of play and the strategic resources that go with it, I'd say, "Fuck it. Do what you wanna do, right?" But I'd argue that these cancerous combats that grow and grow in length and complexity until they completely dominate an evening of gaming carry with them a lot of other harmful effects.

Quote from: Marleycat;562502So you agree with me then that it's all bullshit?

My experience would agree with the general principle that there are some encounters that wizards dominate and there other encounters the non-wizards dominate.

But the sheer number of unexamined premises that deadDMwalking tosses into the ring in order to draw his dubious "conclusions" are truly ludicrous.

For example, it's really easy to theorycraft the "conclusion" that wizards will totally dominate any adventuring day which only has a single encounter in it. But that "conclusion" requires, among other things:

(1) An assumption that the PCs have perfect knowledge of what their adventuring day holds. (For example, see a cave entrance. Just inside the entrance they encounter a half dozen goblins. The wizard doesn't blow his fireball spell because, hey, there might be more powerful stuff in the next room. So the melee fighters do all the work and the wizard stands around doing nothing. Only, hey, it turns out that there aren't any other monsters in this cave. The wizard has done nothing all day and the fighters did everything.)

(2) An assumption that the wizard has nothing better to do with his daily spell slots. (In my D&D3 campaign, the wizard is frequently trying to conserve some of his daily spells so that he can scribe them onto scrolls. In AD&D1, the better use could be as simple as "saving them for tomorrow" because a single spell could take an hour or more to re-memorize. There are also, of course, the plethora of non-combat spells that smart wizards spend time preparing in any campaign which is more than a tactical miniatures game.)

And that's just scratching the surface of his false premises:

(3) He has an assumption that the best way to measure "fun" or "contribution" or whatever is by the number of encounters involved. But that's pretty questionable. (An OD&D wizard casts sleep on the first round of combat. The bad guys fail their saving throws. The wizard has "won" the entire combat in less than 30 seconds of table time. Now, did he have more or less fun than the fighters who take 5 rounds (and 20 minutes of table time) to wrap-up the next encounter without much or any help from the wizard? Is it more or less fun than when the thief spends 30 seconds disabling a trap?)

(4) Then there's the assumption that "one character's success comes at the expense of another". Is that really true? If the wizard blinds the party's foes with glitterdust so that the fighters can mop them up, the wizard has dominated the outcome of the encounter. But does that make things less fun or more fun for the fighters?

(5) And, of course, there's the biggie: The assumption that players are primarily selfish and enjoy things only through the immediate agency of their character instead of collectively enjoying the things accomplished by the entire team.

Things like #4 and #5 are obviously true for some tables, of course, but the assumption that they apply to all tables is problematical in the extreme.

So you understand my mindset and don't think its nuts. Btw I'm a 2e/3x player/DM.

Quote from: Windjammer;562194The rest of the article is to speak about 'doing the math right' (another thing that sits well with forum frequenters, and why not?): where it goes wrong is in ramming the two ideas together.

Core design = the adventure day
core design needs to get the math right
-----
Conclusion: let's quantify the adventuring day.

I would have thought 4E spoke loud and clearly just how much goes wrong when you run these two thoughts (premises) together. I do agree that a good mathematical base is indispensable for a game; the core engine needs to work. But how that core engine engages with the rest of the system/game is a lot more open.

You may be on to a key issue here. I would add that it is a matter of degrees. A game with no underlying support structures can become directionless; after all, roleplaying games are about structured interaction. Structures help to write and run a game from encounter to adventure to campaign. But if you extend that structuring too far (like with over-quantification), you lose another great aspect of RPGs, the creative chaos that emerges between the conflicting ideas and actions around the table. I have consistently been speaking out against too much standardisation and streamlining, and it may well be that 5e's success will also hinge on managing this balance without going overboard in either direction.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;562527For example, it's really easy to theorycraft the "conclusion" that wizards will totally dominate any adventuring day which only has a single encounter in it. But that "conclusion" requires, among other things:

I'll point out that Mike Mearl's asserted this to be true.  I pointed out that much of what Mearl's says is clearly wrong, but if we accept his premise (Wizards will dominate with only a single encounter) that Wizards would often be dominating - because there are lots of reasons to only have a single encounter.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;562527(3) He has an assumption that the best way to measure "fun" or "contribution" or whatever is by the number of encounters involved. But that's pretty questionable. (An OD&D wizard casts sleep on the first round of combat. The bad guys fail their saving throws. The wizard has "won" the entire combat in less than 30 seconds of table time. Now, did he have more or less fun than the fighters who take 5 rounds (and 20 minutes of table time) to wrap-up the next encounter without much or any help from the wizard? Is it more or less fun than when the thief spends 30 seconds disabling a trap?)

Actually, I assume that the best way to measure 'fun' or 'contribution' is by talking to the players involved and asking for their honest feedback.  This necessarily varies from table to table, but people that do want to make a contribution to the team aren't necessarily playing 'bad, wrong, shitty'.  To be told that they're playing wrong is insulting and fails to recognize that the best way to play is whatever is fun for that group.

Further, I believe that D&D assumes by default 'roughly equal' contributions from all players.  From the original incarnation, you could have 'henchmen and hirelings' that are not expected to contribute in a roughly equal fashion.  I personally think the game is best if PCs have roughly equal contributions - and if you think domination by a single player is superior, you may want to suggest one play use a PC class and the rest be commoners.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;562527(4) Then there's the assumption that "one character's success comes at the expense of another". Is that really true? If the wizard blinds the party's foes with glitterdust so that the fighters can mop them up, the wizard has dominated the outcome of the encounter. But does that make things less fun or more fun for the fighters?

Again, this is not part of my assumption.  In the glitterdust example, the contributions may be 'roughly equal'.  If the wizard could not have 'mopped up the foes' on his own, even blinded, he did not 'dominate' the encounter.  Clearly, the Fighters' contributions were meaningful.  If the Party Fighters would have been unable to defeat the foe(s) if they were unblinded, or it would have been significantly more difficult, than clearly the wizard's contribution was meaningful.  

Now, if the wizard opens up a Dimensional Rift and swallows up all the bad guys, and has been doing that for all the 'cool fights' for a long time, that's a problem.  People who play D&D usually like the idea of fighting monsters - if they don't have a role or chance to participate in a significant number of fights - especially if it is all the otherwise MEANINGFUL fights, that's not fun for me.  I suppose if your interest in the game is based strictly on treasure acquisition, for instance, it wouldn't matter how the enemies were defeated.  That would be true whether it was another player's actions or a DM deus-ex-machina.  There is a 'sliding scale' here. On one end, the DM does everything.  On the other end, everyone in the party contributes roughly equally.  Somewhere in the middle only a single character matters and/or contributes.  For mostly the same reasons I don't want the DM to 'solve all the problems', I don't want one character to solve all the problems.  

I really did play in a game like that.  The DM allowed a friend of his to 'port over' his 2nd edition character to 3.0.  The conversion character was at least 4 levels higher, and the DM didn't understand the effect of templates (this character was a wererat cleric) so his effective level was probably +7 over the rest of the party.  I don't mean to say my player COULDN'T contribute - there were times he could - but he didn't NEED to contribute - because any problem he could contribute to solving, the wererat cleric already had a solution for.  It was impossible for the rest of the players (including me) to consider victories as 'team victories' because the 'team' wasn't required to achieve them.  

Some might argue that if I were a better person, I would have been happy simply for my friend's success.  And if this were 'real world' success, I probably would have been - even though so many people struggle with that.  But this was 'imaginary success' and there was no reason to give one player 'all the tools' and not give some to other players.  This is the same as 'DM Girlfriend' problem that so many people object to.  Power for one player DOESN'T HAVE to come at the expense of other players, but it usually does.  This is especially true if the system asserts some form of 'role protection' but something introduced to the game breaks that down.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;562527(5) And, of course, there's the biggie: The assumption that players are primarily selfish and enjoy things only through the immediate agency of their character instead of collectively enjoying the things accomplished by the entire team.

You can care more for the team's success than your own and still care about contributing.  For example, most players would be happy if they could 'hold the door' to block reinforcements from overwhelming their friends who are fighting the demon king.  Even if the Fighter is standing in the doorway killing orc after orc, he's contributing - and his individual contribution helps with the team mission of killing the demon - indirectly, but meaningfully.  

If there were no reinforcements, that character might be upset if someone casts 'dismissal' on the demon king.  It might not be a 'victory' since the demon might be able to return - and if just 'taking his stuff' wasn't the point of the adventure the 'I win' button in that situation may be poorly named.  Many spells can 'win' an encounter, but they can't win the game - because the game is bigger than any number of encounters.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;562527Things like #4 and #5 are obviously true for some tables, of course, but the assumption that they apply to all tables is problematical in the extreme.

Absolutely.  I fully agree with this statement.  I do not assert that they apply to all tables.  I don't even assert that they apply to my table.  

Because those aren't the only things that have to be true in order for a player to want to make a meaningful contribution to the game.  And that's why the first four pages of RPGnet don't strike me as 'bad'.  Contributing to the game in a meaningful, level-appropriate way is a good thing.  Even if someone doesn't believe it is necessary at their table, I have trouble imagining that it is something they would actively object to.  

What is the downside of everyone having the ability to contribute in a meaningful way?

I think some of the disconnect is people on these boards assume that everyone can contribute in a meaningful way.  Usually, that may be the case - but it's trivial to imagine a situation where that's not true.  A group of 1st level characters with a 20th level leader versus the Tarrasque - the 1st level character's contributions are so meaningless as to make them pointless...  And if I want to waste my time, I can come here instead of playing the game.