Why is it so important?
- Thread starter Treebore
- Start date
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I couldn't find a good post to quote this question directly to, so I'll have to post without referring to a specific quote:
One argument against encounter-based resource management I saw was that it would force each encounter to be a deadly and life-threatening encounter to be of significance at all (at least assuming there are no virgins to be freed from the altar of sacrifice).
But is this really different from the daily resource management paradigm?
Why does a wizard or cleric cast spells in an encounter that is not life-threatening?
Possible Answers:
1) He casts them because he wants to do something in the encounter at all?
2) He casts them because otherwise the encounter would end deadly.
3) He casts them because the encounter ends quicker.
Well, 1) indicates that not casting spells is "unfun" for the player of the wizard or cleric in question. 2) indicates that the encounter was life-threatening, contradicting our assumption.
3) either indicates 2) (the encounter might become deadly if it lasts longer) or that the spellcaster in question didn't enjoy the encounter where he didn't get to much spellcasting and wanted to put a stop to it.
Maybe others find a grave flaw in my argumentation, but if this is true, then essentially, even in the daily resource management paradigmn, encounters are either dangerous or only enjoyable for some players.
---
It might also be interesting to see how per encounter based resources can still give you the feeling of "resource attrition". If we are assuming the typical dungeon environment, traditionally we have many rooms, several of whom include monsters. Often enough DMs or adventure designers put some restraints on how many monsters are alerted by a fight in a nearby room.
Let's assume the players are fighting such a fight in a room, and this time, a few adjacent guards are alerted - in a few rounds, they will be there (the players might be unaware of this dynamic). Somewhere during the fight, maybe even shortly after the last monster in the current room has been disabled, but before the "per encounter" resources are replenished, the other monsters arrive. The players might be out of some their per encounter resources - if they used their resources carefully, they can spend them now, finishing the encounter more easily as if they had already spend their resources.
It is absolutely possible to have the same scenario with the current system.
But the aftermath of this encounter is different:
- In the encounter based resource paradigm, the group can choose to press on and have a reasonable chance to take on a few further encounters. This can be pretty nice if there is some time constraint involved.
- Int he daily resource paradigm, the group will certainly want to make camp, unless they know that there is not much to do next. If the plot demands it, they will press on, but their survival chances are considerably lower...
The second half of this I already addressed in my example where the adventure puts a major encounter in the middle after which the players are still forced to go on. But the resource attrition within the encounter-based scheme is different.
Essentially, you can make more dynamic encounters without forcing your PCs to rest after each such dynamic encounter (which would probably destroy the dynamic feel again) as it is today.
One argument against encounter-based resource management I saw was that it would force each encounter to be a deadly and life-threatening encounter to be of significance at all (at least assuming there are no virgins to be freed from the altar of sacrifice).
But is this really different from the daily resource management paradigm?
Why does a wizard or cleric cast spells in an encounter that is not life-threatening?
Possible Answers:
1) He casts them because he wants to do something in the encounter at all?
2) He casts them because otherwise the encounter would end deadly.
3) He casts them because the encounter ends quicker.
Well, 1) indicates that not casting spells is "unfun" for the player of the wizard or cleric in question. 2) indicates that the encounter was life-threatening, contradicting our assumption.
3) either indicates 2) (the encounter might become deadly if it lasts longer) or that the spellcaster in question didn't enjoy the encounter where he didn't get to much spellcasting and wanted to put a stop to it.
Maybe others find a grave flaw in my argumentation, but if this is true, then essentially, even in the daily resource management paradigmn, encounters are either dangerous or only enjoyable for some players.
---
It might also be interesting to see how per encounter based resources can still give you the feeling of "resource attrition". If we are assuming the typical dungeon environment, traditionally we have many rooms, several of whom include monsters. Often enough DMs or adventure designers put some restraints on how many monsters are alerted by a fight in a nearby room.
Let's assume the players are fighting such a fight in a room, and this time, a few adjacent guards are alerted - in a few rounds, they will be there (the players might be unaware of this dynamic). Somewhere during the fight, maybe even shortly after the last monster in the current room has been disabled, but before the "per encounter" resources are replenished, the other monsters arrive. The players might be out of some their per encounter resources - if they used their resources carefully, they can spend them now, finishing the encounter more easily as if they had already spend their resources.
It is absolutely possible to have the same scenario with the current system.
But the aftermath of this encounter is different:
- In the encounter based resource paradigm, the group can choose to press on and have a reasonable chance to take on a few further encounters. This can be pretty nice if there is some time constraint involved.
- Int he daily resource paradigm, the group will certainly want to make camp, unless they know that there is not much to do next. If the plot demands it, they will press on, but their survival chances are considerably lower...
The second half of this I already addressed in my example where the adventure puts a major encounter in the middle after which the players are still forced to go on. But the resource attrition within the encounter-based scheme is different.
Essentially, you can make more dynamic encounters without forcing your PCs to rest after each such dynamic encounter (which would probably destroy the dynamic feel again) as it is today.
hong said:
These claims seem plausible to me. But are the prior fights necessarily unfun? If they involve decisions about balancing resources so as to be ready for the final fight, that might be fun in itself, for some players.Mustrum_Ridcully said:
But then, as has been pointed out, a similar sort of resource management exercise can take place with per-encounter resources, as in any given round of decision making the final resolution of the encounter is still an unknown quantity - even if it's known that at the end of the encounter all those resources will replenish.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Grog said:
As I said, I pared it down as simply as I could to illustrate what I was trying to say. If you answer the questions honestly, we can proceed. Otherwise, I fail to see the point of endlessly repeating myself.
RC
Raven Crowking
First Post
pemerton said:
As you said, your objection doesn't answer the metagame goal. As with Jackalope King's widening of my analysis, the additions don't speak to the metagame goal. Yes, encounters and combats are more complicated that the simple point-by-point analysis I made. Yes, there are additional factors irrelevant to the point being made. Yes, I failed to include them because they are irrelevant.
Now, if you were to show where any of those points becomes relevant, I would have something to respond to.
RC
Raven Crowking
First Post
hong said:
The metagame goal in question is Wyatt's blog claim that the per-day/per-encoutner/at-will design will alleviate the "9-9:15" adventuring day syndrome.
No one is claiming that there is not more than one way to derive fun from a fight.
Reading the thread you are responding to is one way in which you could avoid this sort of error.
RC
Raven Crowking said:
And so it will. Not in the sense that everybody will suddenly start having six dozen fights before lunch, but in the sense that they will not feel vaguely foolish for forging on after the first fight, despite the rational decision being to stop.
This is what you said.
The only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff.
The significant impact of a battle is whatever you want it to be.
Isn't this fun?
Jackelope King
First Post
Unless you run every single encounter, preset every single challenge in your entire game in complete vaccuum from one another, where what you do in one room of the dungeon has absolutely no impact on another other than what happens to the PCs, then my anaylsis is not "irrelevant", RC. If you disagree with my analysis, then I'd ask that you give a reason why the non-personal resources I describe are, in fact, irrelevant, in the roleplaying genre.Raven Crowking said:As you said, your objection doesn't answer the metagame goal. As with Jackalope King's widening of my analysis, the additions don't speak to the metagame goal. Yes, encounters and combats are more complicated that the simple point-by-point analysis I made. Yes, there are additional factors irrelevant to the point being made. Yes, I failed to include them because they are irrelevant.
Now, if you were to show where any of those points becomes relevant, I would have something to respond to.
RC
Your analysis completely ignores the context of encounters. Every single time. It only holds when each encounter is, in essence, a closed system where the only commonality between each one is the party who engages in them.
While this is possible, you're ignoring the concept of continuity, except for the characters.
However, if you feel that continuity and context in relation to the world around the PCs aren't "relevant", then I'm afraid we're at a disconnect so fundamental that it won't be productive to continue this discussion.
