D&D (2024) Rests should be dropped. Stop conflating survival mechanics with resource recovery.

Challenge fosters fun. Attrition involves large periods of not very challenging areas to get to where the challenge is actually directly present.
It's a strategic challenge. Forcing you to think ahead and beyond the moment your in. (Which is challenging).

Otherwise your saying that Chess isn't any fun until your down to a few pieces.

Now, you could certainly say you prefer playing Street Fighter over Civilization. But your wrong to say Civilization isn't a challenge.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ah so mana potions are a limited resource... who determines the limitation?

...the game designer. Was that a real question or are you too just being obtuse on purpose?
and at ‘per encounter’ everything else is without any consequence

Thats not true at all. Drop the hyperbole.

when was the last time you slept?

Lets not act like most tables are actually tracking rations or water. Mana Potions aren't incompatible with survival mechanics.

Challenge fosters fun. Attrition involves large periods of not very challenging areas to get to where the challenge is actually directly present.

Its not an either/or. Fun comes from a lot of different aspects of a game, including both challenge and attrition.
 

Challenge fosters fun. Attrition involves large periods of not very challenging areas to get to where the challenge is actually directly present.
What attrition does for a game is gives you something to lose other than the challenge as a whole or your character as a whole. You walk out of a _______ (round of combat, encounter, dungeon) with less <something> than when you entered it. It's one of the most straightforward ways to introduce gradation in outcome (instead of 'you succeeded'/'you failed'/'you failed so hard you lose your character'; you add 'you succeeded but expended resources' and 'you failed despite spending resources'). It also provides a set of codified points* where the player gets to make success-determining decisions (the most straightforward of which being, 'do we press on with the resources we have left?').
*Instances of making important decisions would exist anyways, but are situational and GM-dependent.
In an ideal system, potions would be a last resort to keep fighting. Slow natural recovery works in the interim.
Okay, you did not mention in your original post that potions would be the exception to the norm for how this resource was recovered. It's unsurprising that people did not assume SNR as the primary mechanic. Thing is, if that's the case then we are back to resting as a primary method of returning to full resource reserve. In that case, I don't see how we aren't back to, as you put it, "trying to negotiate for what amount of time we're going to skip for arbitrary reasons." We've just added a bypass method that, again, I don't think the rest of us think is better verisimilitude and we really haven't gotten a compelling case from you for why it is better. Probably because...
Its high time to abandon it. Its dumb and the pearl clutchers can be ignored.
This kind of cynicism undermines itself when it fails to think more than a step ahead.
You're being obtuse and cynical; all these things are prime to provide deeper mechanics and gameworlds.
Or you're just being deliberately contemptuous and should just stop engaging if you're all you're going to do is troll.
Okay so you don't actually understand what Im saying at all and aren't even trying.
Thereby wasting time. Congrats, the princess is dead now cause you're desperate to make a point with not a leg to stand on.
You're trying too hard and too obviously.
Yeah I don't buy it. You're trolling and its obvious. Stop replying to me, Im not engaging this naughty word past this point.
...because of this.
Honest question, you do realize that this is the 100% perfect way not to convince anyone of the validity of your position, right? You are declaring other peoples' positions to be in the wrong somehow rather than making the case for it (or better yet, acknowledging their reservations with your proposal and making the case for how your proposal addresses those reservations). Right from the jump, you started with framing hypothetical opposer to your position to be something people think of as inferior/wrong (pearl-clutchers). That set the expectation that the discussion wouldn't be about carefully reasoned and well articulated* points, but about verbal diatribes and brickbats.
*and to be clear, your audience tells you if you have successfully communicated your point.

Now, it's obvious that a large portion of the thread participants haven't bought into your proposal (at least not as they currently understand it). That isn't going to change by you excoriating people with accusations of trolldom or deliberate obtuseness until everyone just sighs and stops following the thread. So, as advise (take it or leave it as you see fit), I would suggest you instead look to the issues people raise related to your proposal and answer them with succinct cases and clarifications. Even if you do not believe an individual is asking them in good faith, it provides an answer for the third party individual reading the thread who also may have reservations, not understand your positions as you see it, etc.

All any of us are tabula rasa on this board. All we have are our words to convince each other of the rightness of our positions or the brilliance of our ideas.
 

Its not an either/or. Fun comes from a lot of different aspects of a game, including both challenge and attrition.
This might be a matter of tastes differing but there are only two circumstances I've found attrition to be fun.
  • "Test your luck/chicken" mechanics where you are gambling; the longer you stay the lower your odds but the higher your prize (oD&D used to do this with things like seeing how deep you could go in the dungeon and wandering monster checks but with its grindingly slow combat and focus on premade adventures to completion 5e doesn't)
  • When the attrition is a byproduct of a puzzle/skill test and the puzzle/test is inherently fun
Under all other circumstances I can think of I find attrition to be the literal opposite of fun. Tedious, pointless chores we have to do. It's just pure grinding for its own sake.

Challenge is fun. Attrition for attrition's sake is, at least for me, the literal opposite of fun.
 

you did not mention in your original post that potions would be the exception to the norm for how this resource was recovered.

Thats because its my personal take on the idea. Theres more than one way to do it.

Thing is, if that's the case then we are back to resting as a primary method of returning to full resource reserve

No, because by slow natural recovery I mean slow natural recovery. Wasting a week or more after one encounter wouldn't be a viable option, and especially not in a game where time matters. What you can get back passively only negates the need to consume energy for trivial encounters; if you blow your Mana pool on a goblin you're going to need potions or a two week siesta. Stamina would likely come back faster, but would still be in the same boat.

And meanwhile, at no point is resting actually required. Read the topic title. The entire point is to stop conflating resource recovery with survival mechanics.

Honest question, you do realize that this is the 100% perfect way not to convince anyone of the validity of your position, right?

If you read those posts and thought that person was engaging in good faith then I can't help you.

it provides an answer for the third party individual reading the thread who also may have reservations

Then those people should engage the topic in good faith and Ill converse with them.

Thus far, haven't gotten much of that at all.
 

It's a strategic challenge. Forcing you to think ahead and beyond the moment your in. (Which is challenging).

Otherwise your saying that Chess isn't any fun until your down to a few pieces.

Now, you could certainly say you prefer playing Street Fighter over Civilization. But your wrong to say Civilization isn't a challenge.
Attrition is neither necessary nor sufficient for a strategic challenge. Civilization is an excellent example here; you sometimes take damage but the strategic challenge is focused on who can grow fastest, and the attrition happens fast and you always get to build back with better stuff or you don't.

Growth is inherently fun, and challenge and testing is. But civilization works and is popular in part because the attrition is minimal and doesn't last unless you fail the challenge.
 

Attrition for attrition's sake is, at least for me, the literal opposite of fun.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the implementation of attrition just for its own sake.

This is why I mentioned the side effects of cheat modes earlier. It makes gameplay that wasn't tedious before feel tedious, and its difficult for limitation to feel fun again regardless of the specific mechanics once cheat mode has been used.

I used to be able to play Skyrim on my Switch without issue, but since finding exploits, guess what feels just as tedious to play as its PC counterpart?
 


Chess is a 100% attrition, and provides a strategic challenge.

So while I agree attrition is not necessary, it is sufficient.
Chess is not 100% attrition. Chess is also tactical movement, irrevocable movement and other elements. And as mentioned a strategic challenge.

Something is necessary to make an unfolding position with regular permanent changes. Attrition can provide it and it's far easier to execute on attrition-based than growth-based games. So you can make attrition a component of something fun - but that doesn't mean that it's the attrition itself that's fun.
 

Chess is not 100% attrition. Chess is also tactical movement, irrevocable movement and other elements. And as mentioned a strategic challenge.
All movement is irrevocable... Unless you have some kind of time travel power.

And yes, it is attrition.
a reduction in numbers usually as a result of resignation, retirement, or death

Pieces never recover in Chess. Resources only ever go down.

If you cast shield to block a goblin attack, you won't have it for blocking the BBEG attack later. Should you take the hit instead?

It's a challenging question.
 

Remove ads

Top