Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6656958" data-attributes="member: 6696971">At first blush in reading your exchange with Hemlock and then this, I'm kind of waffling back and forth between whether we're in agreement or not.&nbsp; If you don't mind, I'm going to use some simple examples from your game that I hope might illustrate my position.Your PC group has (that I'm aware of) used three primary means of travel/navigation:1)&nbsp; Hoofing it manually2)&nbsp; Phantom Steed Ritual3)&nbsp; The flying tower that is sort of their analogue to the X-Men's BlackbirdThe implications of 1-3 have had implications on your players' action declarations that span that tactical &lt;==&gt; operational &lt;==&gt; strategic continuum, right?&nbsp; I'm thinking of things like &quot;go here and do this because of n (related to their ability to deploy or not deploy a resource) versus go there&quot; or &quot;provide air support for the guy on the flying carpet or the fighter in the middle of the army of bad guys&quot; or &quot;fly the tower into the entropic hole in the Abyss and stop it from sealing (or something like that...I can't recall exactly)&quot;.If the PCs lose access to those resources due to fallout in the fiction (perhaps failure in a Skill Challenge), suddenly the scope of their tactical &lt;==&gt; operational &lt;==&gt; strategic continuum narrows.For a more generic example, consider hirelings/Companion characters or Consumables in 4e.&nbsp; On Consumables, the consideration is &quot;do I need to use this expendable/non-refreshable resource now to get necessary effect x or should I save it for y later?&quot;&nbsp; On Companion characters, going to my Dungeon World example above and moving that to the realm of 4e, if the PCs go to the white dragon and attempt to parley and gain alliance, their is quite an inherent risk.&nbsp; Yes, the machinery for social conflict would be an SC.&nbsp; However, the decision is strategic.&nbsp; We want to gain a powerful ally Companion Character for a coming conflict.&nbsp; We will risk the prospect of having to do battle with something that may be able to TPK us for it.&nbsp; Then there would be operational considerations in the build-up stage and finally down to tactical considerations when locked in deadly combat with their true enemies (the Aboleths) should they be able to successfully gain alliance.&nbsp; A level + 8, possibly unmanageable, climactic combat may now be bumped down to something more akin to level + 7 because of the gain of the Companion character and the use of a consumable at a key moment may help a rally come to realization.Hopefully that better reveals where I'm coming from, and you can tell me if we agree or disagree.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6656958, member: 6696971"] At first blush in reading your exchange with Hemlock and then this, I'm kind of waffling back and forth between whether we're in agreement or not. If you don't mind, I'm going to use some simple examples from your game that I hope might illustrate my position. Your PC group has (that I'm aware of) used three primary means of travel/navigation: 1) Hoofing it manually 2) Phantom Steed Ritual 3) The flying tower that is sort of their analogue to the X-Men's Blackbird The implications of 1-3 have had implications on your players' action declarations that span that tactical <==> operational <==> strategic continuum, right? I'm thinking of things like "go here and do this because of [I]n [/I](related to their ability to deploy or not deploy a resource) versus go there" or "provide air support for the guy on the flying carpet or the fighter in the middle of the army of bad guys" or "fly the tower into the entropic hole in the Abyss and stop it from sealing (or something like that...I can't recall exactly)". If the PCs lose access to those resources due to fallout in the fiction (perhaps failure in a Skill Challenge), suddenly the scope of their tactical <==> operational <==> strategic continuum narrows. For a more generic example, consider hirelings/Companion characters or Consumables in 4e. On Consumables, the consideration is "do I need to use this expendable/non-refreshable resource now to get necessary effect [I]x [/I]or should I save it for [I]y [/I]later?" On Companion characters, going to my Dungeon World example above and moving that to the realm of 4e, if the PCs go to the white dragon and attempt to parley and gain alliance, their is quite an inherent risk. Yes, the machinery for social conflict would be an SC. However, the decision is strategic. We want to gain a powerful ally Companion Character for a coming conflict. We will risk the prospect of having to do battle with something that may be able to TPK us for it. Then there would be operational considerations in the build-up stage and finally down to tactical considerations when locked in deadly combat with their true enemies (the Aboleths) should they be able to successfully gain alliance. A level + 8, possibly unmanageable, climactic combat may now be bumped down to something more akin to level + 7 because of the gain of the Companion character and the use of a consumable at a key moment may help a rally come to realization. Hopefully that better reveals where I'm coming from, and you can tell me if we agree or disagree. [/QUOTE]

Verification