Why is it so important?

[gizmo33]

I've said this a few times, I'm running out of ways of making it clearer.

I'm sorry if anyone felt, because of this sentence, that I was wholesale dismissing their contribution to the conversation. It's not uncommon that I feel that folks aren't always discussing things in good faith - sometimes their memory about what was said or what the other person means seems a little selective depending on whether it makes their case or not. Then again, I suppose it's hard to remember things that you don't agree with, so that could be the reason too.

One reason I made the above quote is that, combined with a little frustration, I was feeling self-conscious about saying the same things repeatedly and not being able to figure out why exactly it seemed necessary.

The second reason was that, in this particular case, I thought the debate was over whether or not per-encounter was more deadly than per-day. I had gotten to a point where it seemed logical to conclude that if encounter N must be "deadly", then that paradigm is deadlier than one where encounter N+X is deadly, where X is some variable that can be greater than 1. All of the sudden though, it seemed as if the topic was changed to something along the lines of "if you just transport yourself to the N+X encounter, then it's all the same" which to me boggled my mind in terms of logic. In fact, I couldn't be all that sure we were discussing the same thing anymore.

I can understand some of RCs frustration because at times the conversation has been very peculiar. However, I can't rule out that this isn't because of some comprehension issue on my part (at least in general, there are times when I'm more certain than others). My current theory, based on some moments of clarity, is that the current difference has a lot to do with playstyle in ways that haven't been fully articulated. The folks that advocate the "all per-encounter" design probably play DnD in a different way than I do. I still suspect that their own interests will not be best served by some of the consequences of the "all per-encounter" design - but it's probably futile to suggest to people what is in their own interest. I also recognize that some folks apparently have experience with similar systems and don't have a problem.

 

[Celebrim]

Challenging PCs through resource attrition is easy and boring. YMMV, and apparently does.

Indeed. Elsewhere in the thread it was argued that one of the main advantages of going to a per encounter model was that it made it easier to design adventurers. That argument I at least could understand the reasoning behind. The argument that it is boring (for the players) I also could understand at least on the grounds that everyone has different tastes.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind 'challenging PC's through resource attrition is easy'.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind 'challenging PC's through resource attrition is easy'.

It is easy because all you have to do is put a series of encounters together. If you add a time constraints, you force the players to master their resources to the finest degree to get to all of them without a death or even TPK...

But, at some point, I don't think it's easy anymore - That's the point where you want to challenge, but not outright kill the PCs. The point where you want to have many encounters during an adventure, but none of them should be boring, and they should be done within a time constraint. So I guess, if I try to see things from a "fair, storytelling DM" perspective, I do not agree.

 

[gizmo33]

But, at some point, I don't think it's easy anymore - That's the point where you want to challenge, but not outright kill the PCs.

Resource attrition does not, by definition, "outright kill the PCs", so I don't really follow the reasoning here.

 

[shilsen]

Indeed. Elsewhere in the thread it was argued that one of the main advantages of going to a per encounter model was that it made it easier to design adventurers. That argument I at least could understand the reasoning behind. The argument that it is boring (for the players) I also could understand at least on the grounds that everyone has different tastes.

Actually, I meant boring from my POV as the DM (though generally as a player I find adventures based heavily around resource attrition boring too). Challenging PCs via resource attrition means the individual encounters don't have to be challenging on their own merits, but can simply soak up some resources and weaken the PCs for the next encounter, which can soak up some more resources, and so on. For me as a DM, that kind of thing is boring to run. I'd much rather run a single fight which is challenging for the PCs, while they're fully equipped and have all their resources. Since I usually have them fighting enemies who are weaker than the PCs, it takes more work on my part to make the fight challenging on its own merits than if I followed the resource attrition approach, so it's more interesting and less boring too. DMs need a challenge too. Or at least this one does.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind 'challenging PC's through resource attrition is easy'.

Mustrum got a fair bit of what I meant. I think challenging PCs through resource attrition is easy because each encounter doesn't have to be just right. Most of them can just soak up some resources to do its work. When I run a single encounter in the day, with the PCs at their best with all resources at hand, then the encounter has to be done just right to be challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on. That's a lot less easy, but it is more satisfying for me as a DM.

 

[gizmo33]

Mustrum got a fair bit of what I meant. I think challenging PCs through resource attrition is easy because each encounter doesn't have to be just right. Most of them can just soak up some resources to do its work. When I run a single encounter in the day, with the PCs at their best with all resources at hand, then the encounter has to be done just right to be challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on.

What's it mean to design an encounter "just" right in a game where you're rolling dice and the players are the ones that get to decide on their actions? Worse, what if the players get to decide how they approach the encounter? What if one time they scout properly and manage to prepare spells ahead of time and get the initiative on their enemy whereas the second time they wander through the "dungeon" singing "hi ho it's off to work we go"?

There are so many, play-controlled (in theory) factors that determine when an encounter would be perceived as just right that I don't really find what you're describing here to fit with practice. And suggesting that per-encounter somehow *requires* this to be the case? Something seems to be missing here.

Again, it's increasingly seeming to me that the play-style thing that seems to largely drive the per-encounter side is that of a heavily plot-driven, linear adventure style where a lot of issues can be controlled by the DM.

 

[gizmo33]

When I run a single encounter in the day, with the PCs at their best with all resources at hand, then the encounter has to be done just right to be challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on. That's a lot less easy, but it is more satisfying for me as a DM.

Also - "challenging on it's own merits" to me means that each individual encounter must pose a significant (measurable) chance of killing a PC. This is something that continues to be disputed by at least some of the pro-per-encounter people, so how is it now that this is treated as an established fact? Are they only considered "facts" when they're used to support one side of the argument and not the other?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Also - "challenging on it's own merits" to me means that each individual encounter must pose a significant (measurable) chance of killing a PC. This is something that continues to be disputed by at least some of the pro-per-encounter people, so how is it now that this is treated as an established fact? Are they only considered "facts" when they're used to support one side of the argument and not the other?

You will note also, I hope, that we have finally come around to two key points made earlier:

* It is easier to plan a successful game using the attrition model, and hence far more likely to be done well by the average DM.

* The per-encounter model, being focused on balancing encounters "just right", has a far narrower window to create encounters that are "challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on".​

These things are either generally true or generally not true.

If true, then it follows that it is more difficult to create encounters that are "challenging on its own merits without (usually) being too challenging for them to take on" than to create a successful game using the attrition model.

It then follows that per-encounter encounters are more likely to be not challenging enough (too easy) or too challenging (TPK, significant chance of character death).

We have seen repeatedly on this board (and in other places) the call to abandon any encounters that are not challenging enough. This is, IMHO, unlikely to change in 4e.

The result is that it follows that DMs are more likely to lean toward too challenging than not challenging enough.

It in turn follows that any resource attrition in those games will be worth restoring (if possible) because all resources (and possibly more than all) are needed to face the challenges of the game.

If this could be any more obvious, it would have to be wearing a clown suit and sitting in your lap.


RC

 

[gizmo33]

It is easier to plan a successful game using the attrition model, and hence far more likely to be done well by the average DM.

I agree with the spirit of most of what you're saying but this statement doesn't feel right to me. Perhaps I misunderstand the context.

The attrition model requires that the DM plan the adventure/dungeon in 4 dimensions. It's just not good enough to think about what is sitting where and what they're doing at the moment PCs visit the dungeon. You have to think about what they'll do in the event that the PCs retreat, change tactics, etc - and the DM might have to plan for this to go a day or two out.

Somewhere earlier (it was this thread I believe), there was an example of someone running Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. Neither he nor the module planned for the contingency of the PCs repeatedly leaving the dungeon - so all the DM did was continue to stock the same areas with the same monsters until he got tired of the sheer boredom. This, IMO, is an example of how the attrition game is actually difficult to plan for because you have to think about the dungeon/adventure in a number of different ways.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Resource attrition does not, by definition, "outright kill the PCs", so I don't really follow the reasoning here.

Well, I am still "I make it easy for me as the DM"-part, which means I am just putting a bunch of encounters together without really checking how much resources the player will have after each encounter. Once you put your mind a bit more into your adventure design, you will naturally gauge the likely resource attrition for each encounter and try to put so many encounters in a day that the last encounter will be hard, but not impossible. But than, as I said, using resource attrition isn't actually easy anymore...