Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7420455" data-attributes="member: 16814">This isn't sufficient for your conclusion.&nbsp; There are games that use encounter framing that have huge disparities in character mechanical balance (Buffy, frex, where one character is vastly superior in many ways to others, such that some encounters can be trivialized by their mere presence in the scene).&nbsp; Encounter balanced games doesn't have to have character balance at all.&nbsp; 4e does.&nbsp; Most Story Now games do, but that's mostly because it's a design goal of the game in addition to encounter based ability balance.If the unit of balance is the adventuring day which is understood to include multiple encounters (eg 6 to 8 in 5e), then the dynamic becomes different. The GM has to have sketched out a sequence of events in advance, or at least maintain the &quot;threat&quot; of such, in order to constrain the use of resources by players whose PCs are on a longer rather than shorter recharge cycle. As well as this implication for pacing and expectations around pacing/framing, there is also another consequence: players who withhold the use of resources out of concern for subsequent encounters which don't occur don't get to use those resources, which leaves those elements of the player archetype unrealised.</blockquote>Again, you're analyzing using the same play objective for both styles.&nbsp; A play objective to get through the session maximizing the strategic use of your abilities isn't well served by encounter balanced play, but it is by daily balanced play.&nbsp; Matching play objectives with game mechanics is important. That a given play objective, no matter how much it's important to you, isn't well served by a ruleset isn't automatically indicative of a failing of that ruleset.&nbsp; Only if the ruleset fails to deliver it's promised play objectives is it a failure.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7420455, member: 16814"] This isn't sufficient for your conclusion. There are games that use encounter framing that have huge disparities in character mechanical balance (Buffy, frex, where one character is vastly superior in many ways to others, such that some encounters can be trivialized by their mere presence in the scene). Encounter balanced games doesn't have to have character balance at all. 4e does. Most Story Now games do, but that's mostly because it's a design goal of the game in addition to encounter based ability balance. If the unit of balance is the adventuring day which is understood to include multiple encounters (eg 6 to 8 in 5e), then the dynamic becomes different. The GM has to have sketched out a sequence of events in advance, or at least maintain the "threat" of such, in order to constrain the use of resources by players whose PCs are on a longer rather than shorter recharge cycle. As well as this implication for pacing and expectations around pacing/framing, there is also another consequence: players who withhold the use of resources out of concern for subsequent encounters which don't occur don't get to use those resources, which leaves those elements of the player archetype unrealised.[/QUOTE] Again, you're analyzing using the same play objective for both styles. A play objective to get through the session maximizing the strategic use of your abilities isn't well served by encounter balanced play, but it is by daily balanced play. Matching play objectives with game mechanics is important. That a given play objective, no matter how much it's important to you, isn't well served by a ruleset isn't automatically indicative of a failing of that ruleset. Only if the ruleset fails to deliver it's promised play objectives is it a failure. [/QUOTE]

Verification