Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 3989615" data-attributes="member: 15999">Because I know I've wandered a bit here, let me sum up.&nbsp; And hey, it's my 1000th post, I'll make it a good one:There are many ways to balance casters against fighters.&nbsp; Spells per day is a possibility and, although it has its flaws, it can be made to work.&nbsp; For those who don't like it, I've offered alternatives.&nbsp; For those who are skeptical but open, I offer two things to consider:&nbsp;1) The tactic that most overpowers casters relative to fighters in a spells-per-day paradigm -- retreating and resting as often as desired -- leads to tedious and boring games IMO.&nbsp; For this reason, I rarely see it used in play.&nbsp;2) Adventure design that frustrates retreating and resting (time pressure, competition, enemies pursuing or fortifying) actually makes for more exciting and more fun games by adding a sense of urgency.&nbsp; Many fantasy stories have some sort of race against time.It's more about play style than game design IMO.&nbsp; I don't think it was an intentional design decision, but I think it's an artifact of the way certain spells and abilities work.&nbsp; The choice pops up in many types of games and sports.&nbsp; There are groups whose style in 1E was slow, methodical, extremely cautious, and IMO boring.&nbsp; I think Tomb of Horrors was designed to appeal to such players.&nbsp; That style is both slow for the PCs and for the players.&nbsp; And there will always be spells with complicated or lasting effects that take longer to resolve.&nbsp; This isn't always bad; it's great when you're low-level and want your spells to last (Produce Flame or SNA II for the low-level druid).&nbsp; But, yes, I perceive &quot;gaming time&quot; as the most important resource to manage since I don't get to game that often anymore.&nbsp; I hardly think it's obsessive-compulsive -- in fact, I think paying some attention to gaming time makes the players and DM more willing to NOT micromanage everything and parse every rule's phrasing.Sure.&nbsp; That's why I wouldn't say &quot;continuously,&quot; but rather &quot;when it's logically what the opponents would do.&quot;&nbsp; Guardian Daemons and golems aren't going to pursue you back home (or if they do, you can slip around them and back to what they were guarding).&nbsp; But to me, it is less fun to have a game where we can raid the Caves of Chaos at will and the humanoids just sit there and take it -- it would be a MUCH cooler game if they followed us back to the Keep and staged a massive assault.&nbsp; And in general, I prefer games with some kind of pressure during the adventures.&nbsp; Time, competition, enemy reinforcing, or some sense of urgency.&nbsp; It's more fun and more like the movies that I enjoy.Enemies pursuing when attacked in their lair include Thulsa Doom in Conan, Smaug in the Hobbit, the orcs of Moria in FotR, and the vampires in Lost Boys to name a few.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brother MacLaren, post: 3989615, member: 15999"] Because I know I've wandered a bit here, let me sum up. And hey, it's my 1000th post, I'll make it a good one: There are many ways to balance casters against fighters. Spells per day is a possibility and, although it has its flaws, it can be made to work. For those who don't like it, I've offered alternatives. For those who are skeptical but open, I offer two things to consider: 1) The tactic that most overpowers casters relative to fighters in a spells-per-day paradigm -- retreating and resting as often as desired -- leads to tedious and boring games IMO. For this reason, I rarely see it used in play. 2) Adventure design that frustrates retreating and resting (time pressure, competition, enemies pursuing or fortifying) actually makes for more exciting and more fun games by adding a sense of urgency. Many fantasy stories have some sort of race against time. It's more about play style than game design IMO. I don't think it was an intentional design decision, but I think it's an artifact of the way certain spells and abilities work. The choice pops up in many types of games and sports. There are groups whose style in 1E was slow, methodical, extremely cautious, and IMO boring. I think Tomb of Horrors was designed to appeal to such players. That style is both slow for the PCs and for the players. And there will always be spells with complicated or lasting effects that take longer to resolve. This isn't always bad; it's great when you're low-level and want your spells to last (Produce Flame or SNA II for the low-level druid). But, yes, I perceive "gaming time" as the most important resource to manage since I don't get to game that often anymore. I hardly think it's obsessive-compulsive -- in fact, I think paying some attention to gaming time makes the players and DM more willing to NOT micromanage everything and parse every rule's phrasing. Sure. That's why I wouldn't say "continuously," but rather "when it's logically what the opponents would do." Guardian Daemons and golems aren't going to pursue you back home (or if they do, you can slip around them and back to what they were guarding). But to me, it is [I]less[/I] fun to have a game where we can raid the Caves of Chaos at will and the humanoids just sit there and take it -- it would be a MUCH cooler game if they followed us back to the Keep and staged a massive assault. And in general, I [I]prefer[/I] games with some kind of pressure during the adventures. Time, competition, enemy reinforcing, or some sense of urgency. It's more fun and more like the movies that I enjoy. Enemies pursuing when attacked in their lair include Thulsa Doom in Conan, Smaug in the Hobbit, the orcs of Moria in FotR, and the vampires in Lost Boys to name a few. [/QUOTE]

Verification