[4e] Exertion points rather than at-will/ecounter/daily managment?

[harpy]

I was initially really excited about 4e, but once I got it in my hands I was crestfallen as the system felt far too gamey to me. The system's aesthetics overwhelm me with the sense of playing a boardgame rather than making me feel immersed in an RPG.

One thing that I thought could turn that around would be to use a different system for at-will/encounter/daily powers. Instead of these being card-like abilities that turn off and on, instead give them values that have to be spent by the player within the context of exertion, either physical, mental, spiritual, etc.

At-will powers would have no cost, as they are at-will and so could be done all day long. Encounter powers would have a cost and then dailies would have a significant cost. That way, mechanically, you could represent the power resource of the character being spent on a metric that draws out the theme of the power source better than the gamey lingo.

Further, with a more fine grained system you could break up the rigidity of the current system, allowing a more fluid mixture of choices. Perhaps more than one daily could be spent from the exertion pool, or instead more encounter powers could be utilized at the expense of being able to have enough exertion points to use a daily.

Lastly, with a more fine grain system it could allow a character to push themselves farther. They could go over the "red line" and begin exhausting themselves, either through HP damage, healing surges, or condition effects to allow the player to perform more encounter or daily powers.

Now, it could quickly be pointed out "Isn't anyone thinking of the balance!" that this system could cause. I guess that isn't a concern for me. I'd prefer more of a gambling game of players pushing their characters hard to overcome obstacles rather than rolling through the normal power expenditures.

Has anyone set up a system like this? I might have stayed with 4e if there had been something like this, and it's been out long enough now that it wouldn't surprise me if someone has developed this kind of system.

I assume you couldn't offer this up as a 3rd party supplement though with how the GSL is written.

[Swordgleam]

I'm curious how much you played 4e before forming that opinion. A lot of the "it plays like a board game" impressions people get upon reading the rules, but a few sessions of actual play usually change them. Not saying that you didn't give it a fair shot; just curious.

What you're describing is rather similar to how psionics work in 4e. There are no psionic encounter powers, just ways to augment your at-wills with power points, of which you have a limited number.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm curious how much you played 4e before forming that opinion. A lot of the "it plays like a board game" impressions people get upon reading the rules, but a few sessions of actual play usually change them.

Are you sure about that? I mean the "usually" part.

Because almost two years of playing it has only strengthened my opinion that it plays like a board game. Not that I mind (I like board games), but what the characters do during combat really has very little to do with role playing, and is much closer to games like Descent or even Runebound. And although it of course depends on the DM, most published adventures are strongly about combat.

[harpy]

Yeah, I played it a bit when it first came out. Like I said, the aesthetics of the system kept smacking me over the head and not allowing a lot of verisimilitude to appear.

If some of the more abstract elements could be "simulationized" a bit more then things would be palatable.

[mackejn]

It mostly sounds like you want to swap one game system with another because you don't like the first system. I'm not sure how your idea is any less 'gamey'.

[Delta]

Are you sure about that? I mean the "usually" part.

Because almost two years of playing it has only strengthened my opinion that it plays like a board game. Not that I mind (I like board games), but what the characters do during combat really has very little to do with role playing, and is much closer to games like Descent or even Runebound. And although it of course depends on the DM, most published adventures are strongly about combat.

This. Exactly my opinion. Doesn't mean you can't get a great roleplaying experience out of D&D4, but the crunch part still feels very gamey, and you can't pretend it wouldn't be very combat focused by design.

[Mordokai]

Are you sure about that? I mean the "usually" part.

Because almost two years of playing it has only strengthened my opinion that it plays like a board game. Not that I mind (I like board games), but what the characters do during combat really has very little to do with role playing, and is much closer to games like Descent or even Runebound. And although it of course depends on the DM, most published adventures are strongly about combat.

Yeah, I'm with Kurald here. Only after I have accepted the fact that I won't really be getting that "real" DnD experience out of 4E I have really started enjoying it. And much like Delta above me said, you can still get a good or even great RP experience out of the system. After all, you can roleplay while playing poker, if that is your forte. So yeah, I can state with full conscience that 4E is actually more board game than anything else. At the same time, I can also state that that isn't a bad thing.

And to be at least a little on topic... I like the sound of what OP proposes. If somebody would work the mechanics out, I'd be willing to give it a shot.

[ericgrau]

I'd advise against disrupting game balance willy nilly. As much as people may complain about the existing balance, random guesses will be FAR worse. In this case it should work fine at first, then after a few sessions players will quickly realise that it's much better to use 2 dailies and then rest after every fight, and almost never using encounter powers. Or if dailies are made too expensive, they'll realize they can spam the same good encounter power over and over again for an entire fight; no matter what you do one WILL be better than the other almost by definition.

The 2nd and more important reason is that this will not remove the gamey feel from 4e. This is heavily ingrained in the system in a dozen other ways. The only way to get rid of it is to either play another system or to give yourself a mountain of failure-prone balance work making your own. Or the more common solution is to include some "roleplaying encounters" that have no combat in them at all, so the system you use doesn't matter.

[harpy]

It mostly sounds like you want to swap one game system with another because you don't like the first system. I'm not sure how your idea is any less 'gamey'.

Well, for me the labels that are being used in game mechanics have a big effect on the feel of the game.

Terms like at-will, encounter and daily don't have any connect to the real world, and the division between them is not very "analog" but more abstract and digital. You divide actions up into these very abstract chunks. If you go for a more granular system then the system can feel more free form.

If you make it more granular, and then refer to them as "exertion points" then it thematically points to a real world experience that everyone can relate to. For some people this might not be a big deal, but at least for myself how the systems terms are named does have an impact on the verisimilitude of the game.

[Tiki Snakes]

All RPG's are games.

The only thing that varies is how they are played. To claim that arbitrating the Game in a different way, or simply using different labels will do anything to change it's fundamental nature is, to my mind, rather naive.

[Choco]

All RPG's are games.

The only thing that varies is how they are played. To claim that arbitrating the Game in a different way, or simply using different labels will do anything to change it's fundamental nature is, to my mind, rather naive.

Agreed. I guess if you phrase it as "Game X has is now becoming too much like Game Y" then it makes sense, but D&D has always been a game. And besides, the only difference between the editions is how they arbitrate the rules, that should not affect how you role play, what with D&D being a role playing game after all...

[harpy]

All RPG's are games.

The only thing that varies is how they are played. To claim that arbitrating the Game in a different way, or simply using different labels will do anything to change it's fundamental nature is, to my mind, rather naive.

It's possible that how you think and frame the world would make it seem that way. There are a wide variety of perceptual frameworks on how the world is percieved.

Perhaps for yourself every game system leaps out to you as an abstract system. Your brain shakes away the thematic tones and the abstract structure is laid bare.

For myself this is possible, but I have to exert some mental effort to see things from a purely abstract view. Instead what happens for me is that that the labels and general rules structure have a powerful effect. If the game uses terms that are abstract and don't have any real world corollaries then it leaps out to me as a "game" but if the terms and mechanics are closer to modeling real world dynamics then the game elements can fade into the background and allow for more immersion.

I stressed aesthetics in the first post because that is what I'm really focusing on. Some people do not pay much attention to the effects of aesthetics, their perception of the world focusing on other ways in which information is organized. Still, there are people, like myself, where they are important, and so I don't really see that focus as being naive.

[Kurald Galain]

And besides, the only difference between the editions is how they arbitrate the rules, that should not affect how you role play, what with D&D being a role playing game after all...

Of course the rules affect how you roleplay.

The most common example is combat. If, according to the rules, combat is very lethal (e.g. Shadowrun, Vampire) then this encourages the players to roleplay their characters avoiding combat, using diplomatic approaches, or carefully planning ambushes. Conversely, if by the rules, combat will never seriously injure your character and resurrections are a bargain at 500 gp each, then this encourages players to roleplay their characters solving every problem through charging it with their sword.

Rules are the tool for the job. Yes, you can use a hammer to put a screw into the wall. That doesn't mean that a screwdriver isn't better suited for the task.

[pasko77]

Has anyone set up a system like this? I might have stayed with 4e if there had been something like this, and it's been out long enough now that it wouldn't surprise me if someone has developed this kind of system.

Yes, I did!
I will summarize my system, in hope you will find my ideas useful:
1) Everyone starts with 4 + (Level /2) Fatigue
2) Every Encounter Power costs 1 Fatigue
3) Every Daily Power costs 3 Fatigue
4) Every power or ability that gives HP without the expenditure of a healing surge, now give temporary hit points (to prevent clerics from replenishing everyone after each encounter)

I went further and thought:
5) Every Action Point costs 3 Fatigue. There are no other ways to gain Action Points.
6) You can convert 2 healing surges with 1 Fatigue.

I hope you like it.
Pasko

[Tiki Snakes]

It's possible that how you think and frame the world would make it seem that way. There are a wide variety of perceptual frameworks on how the world is percieved.

Perhaps for yourself every game system leaps out to you as an abstract system. Your brain shakes away the thematic tones and the abstract structure is laid bare.

For myself this is possible, but I have to exert some mental effort to see things from a purely abstract view. Instead what happens for me is that that the labels and general rules structure have a powerful effect. If the game uses terms that are abstract and don't have any real world corollaries then it leaps out to me as a "game" but if the terms and mechanics are closer to modeling real world dynamics then the game elements can fade into the background and allow for more immersion.

I stressed aesthetics in the first post because that is what I'm really focusing on. Some people do not pay much attention to the effects of aesthetics, their perception of the world focusing on other ways in which information is organized. Still, there are people, like myself, where they are important, and so I don't really see that focus as being naive.

During the course of my job, which is at times quite physically demanding, I have never once had to ask for a break because 'I'm out of Exertion Points.'

My point is quite simply that whether you perceive it or not, any given RPG IS a game. It doesn't matter whether you percieve the abstract framework or not, because it is there. If it's as simple as the names of things, then simply rename things. I'd suggest taking the lead of the 4e power structure, actually.
For example, Wizard powers are explicitely spells. So level 1 at-wills become First Circle Charms, or Greater Cantrips, or Least Incantations. Et cetera

If your problem is truly not with the abstracts of the system, then leave the abstracts alone and deal with the problem you have identified. Ie, fluff.

[Kurald Galain]

My point is quite simply that whether you perceive it or not, any given RPG IS a game. It doesn't matter whether you percieve the abstract framework or not, because it is there.

Of course. Nevertheless, the aim of any given abstract framework is different. For instance, the 3E framework has generally aimed towards verisimilitude (whether it has succeeded at that is another matter), so it should be no surprise that balance, which wasn't really a design goal, suffers as a result.

Likewise, the 4E framework has generally aimed towards balance (with the same caveat) so it should be no surprise that verisimilitude, which wasn't really a design goal here, has suffered.

If your problem is truly not with the abstracts of the system, then leave the abstracts alone and deal with the problem you have identified. Ie, fluff.

It seems to me that his problem is precisely with the abstracts of the system, and not with fluff; only that his solution causes other problems with abstracts.

Yes, I did!
I will summarize my system, in hope you will find my ideas useful:
1) Everyone starts with 4 + (Level /2) Fatigue
2) Every Encounter Power costs 1 Fatigue
3) Every Daily Power costs 3 Fatigue

The basic problems appear to be that (a) you call it "fatigue" but it doesn't work the way fatigue works in real life (e.g. it's not impacted by high constitution or lack of sleep, or by strenuous activity like running or swimming), and (b) it appears to negatively affect on game balance (e.g. high-level characters can use action points all the time, and can simply spam a good encounter power over and over).

[pasko77]

The basic problems appear to be that (a) you call it "fatigue" but it doesn't work the way fatigue works in real life (e.g. it's not impacted by high constitution or lack of sleep, or by strenuous activity like running or swimming), and (b) it appears to negatively affect on game balance (e.g. high-level characters can use action points all the time, and can simply spam a good encounter power over and over).

A) apart from the trivial answer "call it energy" :) I will notice that the rule 6 poses a relationship with Constitution (on which the number of surges depends).

B) Yes, it might not be competition-accurate. It is a guideline for who, like me, is itched by the impossibility to use the same technique twice.

You can amend the system with more accurate rules.
eg:
7) every Action Point or Power costs 1 more Fatigue for each time is used in the same encounter.

or simply ditch the whole idea.
Guess which one is constructive? :)

[Aron Times]

The system is not the one which is supposed to make you willingly suspend your disbelief. That's your responsibility. You already accept that characters can be represented by nothing more than a sheet of paper and some dice, so why not other metagame concepts?

[Kurald Galain]

The system is not the one which is supposed to make you willingly suspend your disbelief. That's your responsibility. You already accept that characters can be represented by nothing more than a sheet of paper and some dice, so why not other metagame concepts?

Because some concepts are easier to disbelieve than others, obviously. If you see a mindless zombie, does it break your disbelief if you can nevertheless mind-control it?

This trope is relevant, in that it applies to most RPGs, but not to 4E.

[Yakk]

Why have the same mechanics for each power source?

If you want a more 3e style feel:
Arcane characters find spells as they adventure. Characters have a limit to how many spells they "know", and at the start of a day pick which spell they memorize. The Daily/Encounter mechanic remains the same, as Encounter spells are merely spells that are easy to refresh by rereading them.

Psionic characters can be retrofitted with an ego point system to pay for daily powers. Or left alone, as they already have a pretty wonkey system.

Martial characters we can create a 'combat opportunity' system, where you roll 3d6 each round to determine what exploits are available.

Primal characters draw energy from a conflict, with a chance to gain the use of encounter/daily powers during and after each fight. Or maybe you give them a fatigue-point system.

Divine characters use the standard encounter model for encounter powers, but daily powers are randomly handed out as divine boons during conflict that furthers their master's agenda.

I mean, if you really miss the non-narrative crunch tendencies of 3e, why stop at one system when you can make 5 of them?

[ericgrau]

Everyone knows what "gamey" means; there's no reason to try to make everyone unlearn it with poor logic. There is a tendency for common games to be simplistic, especially those for ages 6 and up. Poker, monopoly, most video games, etc. all fall under this rule. It makes them quick to learn and play, though no one playing monopoly even thinks they are involved in even a pretend version of real life real estate trading. There are a few more complicated games, but these are less common. 4e is more gamey than 3e. It's undeniable, it's intentional, some like it, some don't, get over it and move on to more helpful discussion rather than pretending like the OP's obvious concerns don't exist... which really doesn't help. As seen already in this thread simply accepting the gaminess is the best thing for 4e lovers to do if they want to enjoy themselves.

[harpy]

The system is not the one which is supposed to make you willingly suspend your disbelief. That's your responsibility. You already accept that characters can be represented by nothing more than a sheet of paper and some dice, so why not other metagame concepts?

I guess the best way to describe it would be if you were to watch a remake of Star Wars, but instead of special effects and costumes you just saw actors walking around on a stage in normal clothing and reading their lines directly from the script. Special effects would just be a card put up in front of the camera with a picture of the Millennium Falcon flying in space, etc.

Ideally the suspension of disbelief should come without exertion. I'm probably far too sensitive to to the metagame concepts compared to most people. I'm just trying to find a way to rework the mechanics to keep the metagame from being so overt.

[Aron Times]

That's not a fair comparison. A better example would be complaining about blaster bolts being deflected by lightsabers while accepting that the Jedi are capable of other superhuman feats like extremely high jumps and extreme balance in unstable platforms.

[Kurald Galain]

That's not a fair comparison. A better example would be complaining about blaster bolts being deflected by lightsabers while accepting that the Jedi are capable of other superhuman feats like extremely high jumps and extreme balance in unstable platforms.

What about Jedi causing huge fish to appear out of nowhere?

[harpy]

That's not a fair comparison. A better example would be complaining about blaster bolts being deflected by lightsabers while accepting that the Jedi are capable of other superhuman feats like extremely high jumps and extreme balance in unstable platforms.

I guess I'd disagree with that comparison. That has more to do with the internal logic of the world.

I'm not sure if you're making the argument of "we are playing in a world with dragons and magic, so why bother complaining at all?" If so, all I can say is that it does matter to me. Having a balance of supernatural and natural expectations is what I'm after. The big problem with 4e is that the meta-game is so frontloaded, it's like having an invasive and chunky HUD in a video game. Rather than being immersed you're constantly having to interpret events through the HUD.

I'm more interested in scrubbing away the meta terms and concepts and relabeling them with terms and systems that are more intuitive to real life experience. It's hardly perfect and you could go far deeper, but as with anything that deals with aesthetics, it's all in the eyes of the beholder. 4e just crosses a certain threshold for me that with a bit of work could be drawn back across the line.

[Aron Times]

What I'm trying to say is that you're better off by not paying too much attention to the metagame concepts and just roleplay like you used to. If you managed to do so in 3e, which is actually a very unrealistic system if you look beneath the surface, you can do the same in 4e.

I suppose the MST3K Mantra needs to be said.

"It's just a game, so I should really just relax."

[Kylarra]

To be honest, if I replace "exertion" with "mana" or "mp", I get a just as "gamey"-feel as you are getting from the at-will/encounter/daily system.

This is just a knee-jerk reaction based on the description of a mostly undefined framework of course.


note: this is not necessarily bad. My primary game to play is Exalted and you regenerate essence motes every hour in that system.

[Kurald Galain]

I suppose the MST3K Mantra needs to be said.

...MST3K being a parody show that makes fun of badly written movies


Anyway. I think "mana points" or "fatigue points" are less gamey than encounter powers, because encounter powers raise the question of why, if you know a useful spell or move, you can't use it twice. Plus you can do things like having swimming cost 1 FP per round (2 in rough water) and you start taking damage when you run out. It's not perfect but at least it's trying.

And this is different from 3.5 how? (If you weren't meaning to make a comparison, I am sorry.)

That the 3E rules don't start with the assumption that you use a game board, and that the spells and abilities used still make sense without it. Of course, by the end of 3.5, WOTC was strongly encouraging game boards for that as well, because they make more money that way.

It's a gradual thing: in my experience, nobody played 2E with a board, and nobody plays 4E without one; 3E could be played either way, although most people I know played without.

[Kylarra]

Eh, I don't really have issues thinking that the right circumstances to pull off a trick only happens once an encounter, possibly twice with reliable if I miss.

On the other hand, if that's an issue for you, I'd really suggest psionics again, since the power point system does allow you to pull off your "dailies" and "encounters" repeatedly by pulling from a common pool of "energy". It's still on a per-encounter basis, but I think the idea of trying to scrub away all the meta and get "realism" is part of what led to FATAL. /invokes godwin's law of RPGs.

[Kurald Galain]

I think the idea of trying to scrub away all the meta and get "realism" is what led to FATAL. /invokes godwin's law of RPGs.

Oh, there's lots more wrong with FATAL than a desire for realism