Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5604885" data-attributes="member: 18280">Beats the heck out of me; I neither wrote nor read that piece.  My only concern here is the cause of the 15-minute adventuring day....what contributes to it, what does not.  What claim is The Alexandrian making?  I'll be glad to throw my $.02 in.  I might even agree with you!  EDIT:  See next post.Back up, there.  You just took another leap. The 15-minute adventuring day can exist without "automatically replenish[ing] everything at the end of each fight."  It exists because of factors, as described above, which make replenishing automatically the smart move after each fight.  It is not necessary that everything be replenished; nor does it need to be after each fight.  You could have a 15-minute adventuring day, for example, by resting after every two fights.  Or by replenishing only spells, only healing surges, only hit points, or whatever.The key points are (1) something to replenish which makes winning more certain (or, at the very least, mitigates against losing), (2) no consequences for replenishing this thing (which means that all the consequences fall on the "not replenishing" side) and (3) that the first two factors be clear enough that the players understand them.I'm puzzled as to where this comes from.  Whatever makes you think I hold this position?  It should be painfully obvious that, when raiding an active location, factors can prevent resting that would not be present in, say, the Tomb of Eternal Traps Without Wandering Monsters.  Since the factors I site can be present in some cases, but not others, then it makes no sense at all to assume that the consequence of those factors is "either omnipresent or non-existent".Huh.Are you actually saying that you don't see the relationship between what the GM offers, in terms of context and consequence, and what the players choose to do?Everyone at the table has an equal stake in making the game fun.  Everyone has to contribute.  But the GM sets the conditions under which the players operate; his decisions largely determine what sort of choices will be rewarded in the game setting.  The GM's decisions also largely determine what sort of choices will be punished.  The range between these two -- between automatically knowing that X will work or Y will fail -- is the range of interesting/meaningful choices in the game.This is no different than putting on a heavy coat in the winter.  You may say that there is a world of difference between the coat-wearer's choice and the action of the sub-zero weather....but I say that one is a direct and obvious result of the other.And, before someone feels the need to point out the obvious....yes, player input has a direct impact on the conditions set by the GM.  But, that doesn't have any bearing on the fundamental point:  The GM sets the context, the GM sets the consequences, and the players make choices within that paradigm.RC</blockquote>

Verification