Why is it so important?

Raven Crowking said:
Most of the classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy fiction I've read suggests otherwise, however. While John Carter can fight green Martians with abandon, the toll of fighting wears him down whether it is in a single encounter or spread among several encounters. Likewise, while on the surface Conan might seem to have "per encounter" reserves, in practice, Conan is concerned with (i.e., treats as significant) encounters that would be mechanically insignificant in a per-encounter model.

Frankly, most of my reading suggests otherwise to yours. I've read a lot of both the Mars stories and Conan (at least the Howard Conan), and while you may have segments in the stories where both Carter and Conan are described as tired and losing energy, both of them always seem capable of continuing to kick just as much ass in any fight as ever. I really can't recall a time in a Carter or Conan story where either of them is actually defeated due to tiredness. And if they're described as tired but it has no effect, then it maps very well to a per-encounter model.

Realistically, people really do suffer from attrition until being able to rest for a significant period of time (and often, until they can sleep). Damage doesn't fully heal between encounters, or even overnight. Straining one's mental resources to the utmost does require downtime to recover -- as any student cramming for exams or writing a thesis can tell you.

True, but since people in D&D aren't realistically people as we meet in the world around us, especially once they have a few levels, how does that really matter? People in D&D, especially PCs, are much closer to mythical characters. And Cuchulainn, as far as I can recall, just about wrote the book on per-encounter abilities.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Mallus said:
It would. That's not my big issue with the attrition model, though. What I don't like is the overly predictable encounter structurel it pretty much forces on adventure design, and the fact that it works best in a static environment where the players basically control how much danger they face.

There's a big difference, then.

I like that PC choices have such an overall effect on their experience of the game.

I also have never seen evidenc that the attrition model forces a predictable encounter structure on adventure design.

Indeed, that the PCs can choose encounter structure, and that a predictable encounter structure is forced, seem to be mutually exclusive to me.

YMMV, and obviously does.

RC
 

shilsen said:
I really can't recall a time in a Carter or Conan story where either of them is actually defeated due to tiredness. And if they're described as tired but it has no effect, then it maps very well to a per-encounter model.

If I pull quotes where classic adventure/fantasy characters are defeated due to tiredness, will you accept that as evidence that the attrition model is superior at modelling this sort of fiction? What if the character specifically says he was close to defeat due to tiredness, but managed to escape the fight? Does that count?

Because I happen to be re-reading The Gods of Mars right now.

If not, why not?

RC
 

shilsen said:
And if they're described as tired but it has no effect, then it maps very well to a per-encounter model.

Here, it is my opinion that they are tired, it does have an effect, but they manage to win anyway. This is because I don't view "knowing that they win" as something which should be mapped into the game system. The very idea of it turns me off completely, as player or DM.

True, but since people in D&D aren't realistically people as we meet in the world around us, especially once they have a few levels, how does that really matter? People in D&D, especially PCs, are much closer to mythical characters. And Cuchulainn, as far as I can recall, just about wrote the book on per-encounter abilities.

It only matters in terms of the "Oh, then you must be a gamist whereas I am a simulationist" argument.

RC
 

shilsen said:
Frankly, most of my reading suggests otherwise to yours. I've read a lot of both the Mars stories and Conan (at least the Howard Conan), and while you may have segments in the stories where both Carter and Conan are described as tired and losing energy, both of them always seem capable of continuing to kick just as much ass in any fight as ever.

This is very subjective and difficult IMO. Howard's descriptions seems to switch perspective between Conan's and an outsiders, meaning that at times you don't know what is going on or whether Conan really is tired or not. For example: the frequent passages that describe Conan with an analogy like "like a wounded tiger" or something. That sort of thing is very much an external perspective on his condition. Yes, he continues to kill people even when he's wounded or tired.

One good story to analyze as far as sheer fatigue would be "Frost Giant's Daughter". He's stumbling around chasing after a phantom, and though while it's a matter of interpretation, I find the story to work in part because you, as the reader, are left wondering whether or not Conan is hallucinating during the story as a result of fatigue and exposure. Then again when the Frost Giants jump out he dispatches both rather easily (compared to his more prolonged fights with man-like apes and such), in spite of the fact that he's been wounded.

There's another instance in a story I recently red ("Scarlet Citidel" I think) where the enemy wizard has Conan fight his warriors for a while, before stepping forward and felling him with a poison touch attack. You could interpret that as Conan being vulnerable to the attack because of fatigue (although the supernatural quickness of the wizard is referenced). However, I can't think of a situation where Howard is explicit about any of Conan's physical weaknesses - as I said he tends to change perspective to that of an observer when Conan is in desperate straights.

On the "Phoenix on the Sword" there is a point where a summoned demon is ready to kill Conan, he's laying on the floor and manages to get out of it at the last minute. Afterwards he is having his wounds attended to as they discuss the events that transpired. Seems like such a denoument is consistent with the idea that Conan is hurt and will rest for a while - otherwise why not just sling his sword over his shoulder and head down to the local tavern to talk about it? (Ok, he is king at this point, but I can still imagine him patronizing taverns.)

shilsen said:
I really can't recall a time in a Carter or Conan story where either of them is actually defeated due to tiredness.

Several Conan stories start with him waking up underneath of a pile of corpses on a battlefield.

shilsen said:
And if they're described as tired but it has no effect, then it maps very well to a per-encounter model.

The reader doesn't have access to Conan's stats. He doesn't really know what Conan's capabilities are because he can't re-run the battle with Conan fully rested. It's clear that Conan has superhuman stamina, but at the same time he is often described as being tired and I think it would be taken as a given that his capabilities would be diminished. I don't expect someone familiar with boxing and physical exertion like Howard to completely dismiss physical limitations in such a way. It's pretty much what I would imagine a high level fighter in DnD would look like, and the fact that he's low on hitpoints (hence the desperation in the narrative that you see when Conan has been in battle for a while) doesn't mean he's been defeated. Even Conan's bad days are better than other people's good days.

shilsen said:
True, but since people in D&D aren't realistically people as we meet in the world around us, especially once they have a few levels, how does that really matter? People in D&D, especially PCs, are much closer to mythical characters. And Cuchulainn, as far as I can recall, just about wrote the book on per-encounter abilities.

Cuchulainn is probably one of the most extreme examples you can possibly find. Borders on Pecos Bill riding around on a tornado. Cuchulainn holds off an entire kingdom worth of people just because of some curse - I'm sure you're familiar with all that. Bottom line is that this very much is a gaming style issue as well, certain for a game based on tall-tales or superhero comics, quicker recovery is more acceptable. It's a matter of opinion and degree otherwise.
 

Raven Crowking said:
If I pull quotes where classic adventure/fantasy characters are defeated due to tiredness, will you accept that as evidence that the attrition model is superior at modelling this sort of fiction?

Sure. I wouldn't doubt that the attrition model is superior at modelling that sort of fiction. But then I'm firmly in the camp which says D&D is lousy at modelling most classic/adventure fiction beyond D&D, so I'd probably think even "superior" is only comparative and it doesn't model it well at all.

What if the character specifically says he was close to defeat due to tiredness, but managed to escape the fight? Does that count?

Marginally. In my game (esp. when I'm writing it up in story hour format), I may describe a character who's damaged as having been tired and less functional than usual. But, in reality, he was just as functional as before, since in D&D you're as functional with 1 hp as you are with 100 hp when it comes to being able to swing a sword or sling a spell. So a description which doesn't really have any mechanical effect doesn't count that much to me. If Conan says he was near defeat from tiredness, then he wasn't tired enough for it to count.

gizmo33 said:
Cuchulainn is probably one of the most extreme examples you can possibly find. Borders on Pecos Bill riding around on a tornado. Cuchulainn holds off an entire kingdom worth of people just because of some curse - I'm sure you're familiar with all that. Bottom line is that this very much is a gaming style issue as well, certain for a game based on tall-tales or superhero comics, quicker recovery is more acceptable. It's a matter of opinion and degree otherwise.

Agreed about the gaming style issue. I just think that without heavy house-ruling, D&D (esp. from the double-digit levels) in all editions has always been much closer to Cuchulainn than Conan. What the PCs in my current game can do at 13th lvl is very clearly in the same category as one finds in mythic heroes. And from what little I've played of 2e and heard of earlier editions, PCs at the same level were even more powerful, since they tended to be able to defeat comparatively greater threats (a 13th lvl fighter in 2e could take apart a bunch of fire giants, whereas one in 3e will have some problems with them). D&D, in my estimation, does superheroes and myth much better than it does traditional fantasy/adventure stories. And I think that's a good thing. Many others may of course disagree.
 

shilsen said:
since in D&D you're as functional with 1 hp as you are with 100 hp when it comes to being able to swing a sword or sling a spell.

There's an important part of the interpretation here that you're not stating. The idea that you are agile and rested enough to not be killed by the swing of a longsword is what having lots of hitpoints represents. You, therefore, *aren't* as functional from this perspective when you're at few hitpoints because you can't protect yourself from those single sword swings anymore. Sure, you were probably talking about the absence of modifiers to hit, or spell failure, or something like that - but the point and spirit of the hitpoint rules is what I've said above and I think it contradicts the spirit of what you're suggesting.

shilsen said:
What the PCs in my current game can do at 13th lvl is very clearly in the same category as one finds in mythic heroes.

The truth or falsehood of this doesn't quite jump out at me. IMO: Cuchulainn > Conan > Finn MacCumhal. Conan = Lancelot/Tristan > Aragorn. Chuchulainn > Achilles. These comparisons are based on my hazy recollection of how these characters performed relative to the other warriors in mass combat situations. I actually can't think of examples besides the Tain from Irish myth that depict mass battle situations. So Finn probably doesn't belong on an apples-to-apples comparison.

Basically when you say "mythic" I think of that word as covering much more than Cuchulainn, whom I find to be at an extreme scale of power for a myth. (One of the problems could be that the story of Cuchulainn could have been that of a god cast into the form of a mortal by Christian writers, though he's much more substantial then the other characters more readily identified as gods. I suppose such nuances are better left to persons not relying on English translations which may lose some details.)

I'm ok with mythic as a characterization of high level DnD heroes, but that's a pretty broad range of possible meanings in terms of power level.
 

pemerton said:
Is there are reason you are not considering the possibility that per-day may be an obstacle to play which relies on other thresholds of significance, or which is not prudent, and that per-encounter might eliminate this obstacle?
Raven Crowking said:
Give me an example of a theshold of significance that per-day is an obstacle to. I note that by effectively using lower CR encounters (4 goblins vs 10th level fighter), per-day can actually model per encounter to some degree.
Here are three examples - not the only ones that could be given, but ones that illustrate 3 different alternative thresholds of significance:

*If the threshold of significance is tactical excitement, to be generated by encounters that generate the threat but not (if well-played) the reality of long-term resource depletion, per-day gets in the way - because it puts a limit on the number of such encounters that can occur without rest being required.

*If the threshold of significance is enjoyable plot development, and the plot involves first beating the leader in a dramatic battle, then cleaning up the minions as part of the denoument and "victory parade" process, per-day gets in the way - because after the big fight there are not sufficient resources available for the wind-down fights.

*If the threshold of significance is thematic exploration, per-day can get in the way because it imposes a non-thematically generated constraint on the sequencing of encounters and the relation to the passage of gametime - suppose, for example, after a sequence of battles thematic coherence or resolution requires a further encounter to take place (for examle, a PC finally catches a glimpse of her father's killer, and want to pursue the murderer down the corridor), per-day can make this effectively impossible.

All of these examples might illustrate a more general point (I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think it's there): per-day is an obstacle to the dynamic evolution of the sequence of encounters over the course of play, if that dynamic evolution is to be guided by non-resource-management considerations.
 

pemerton said:
*If the threshold of significance is tactical excitement, to be generated by encounters that generate the threat but not (if well-played) the reality of long-term resource depletion, per-day gets in the way - because it puts a limit on the number of such encounters that can occur without rest being required.

Yep, but that sounds like taking a shower would be a bad idea if the point was getting clean without getting wet. If the fun depends on no resource-attrition to be happening from the encounters, a per-day set of abilities of course won't work.

pemerton said:
*If the threshold of significance is enjoyable plot development, and the plot involves first beating the leader in a dramatic battle, then cleaning up the minions as part of the denoument and "victory parade" process, per-day gets in the way - because after the big fight there are not sufficient resources available for the wind-down fights.

Depends on how powerful those "minions" are, doesn't it? :)

pemerton said:
*If the threshold of significance is thematic exploration, per-day can get in the way because it imposes a non-thematically generated constraint on the sequencing of encounters and the relation to the passage of gametime - suppose, for example, after a sequence of battles thematic coherence or resolution requires a further encounter to take place (for examle, a PC finally catches a glimpse of her father's killer, and want to pursue the murderer down the corridor), per-day can make this effectively impossible.

You mean players who actually care enough about their character's backstory that they might want to pursue that murderer down a corridor...only to turn back and go "Aw heck, I can't follow him now, I'm all out of spells"? :confused:

pemerton said:
All of these examples might illustrate a more general point (I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think it's there): per-day is an obstacle to the dynamic evolution of the sequence of encounters over the course of play, if that dynamic evolution is to be guided by non-resource-management considerations.

Only if you let the dynamic evolution of the whole game be guided by meta-game considerations on all sides (DM and players) instead of character motivations and circumstance (in other words, if you let your roleplaying get trumped by tactical and mechanical points).
 

Remove ads

Top