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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GobHag" data-source="post: 9795236" data-attributes="member: 7043860">(The 'ration' in the title refers to any resources that are more associated and are usually tied to the verisimilitude of the world while 'mana' are more disassociated resources that are more specific to the PCs capabilities or their 'sheet buttons')Slightly related to the simulationism discussion popping up last months, but as someone that's on the anti-simulationism side I have realized that I'm not against the idea of resource management at all really since I love DS build-up, then spend design or counting how many focus points I have in PF2 but I still find the very idea of having to count how many arrows in my quiver to be repugnantly boring, same with rations and other realistic resources and that got me thinking; why? Why is there a type of player that are fine or eager to think about abstracted mechanical resources but do not like to have to think about ammunition count?What is the difference between spending 1 arrow to attack or losing one suplly of ration for the day compared to, say, a spellslot for a fireball or 3 Focus to teleport after getting hit? My own take is that I think aesthetic has a lot to do with it, having to devote mental energy to keep track of arrows when it doesn't have a splashiness to it feels like a waste. While having to think about your spellslots is an acceptable trade-off for being able to shoot a flamethrower on your hands or your Iaijutsu Delayed Slash; the 'mana' is the limiter on cool not a limiter to function normally.But that's a perspective coming from inside, so I'd like to ask what ENworlders view on why there are people that like disassociated resource management more than associated resource management</blockquote>

Verification