Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

I think you have some flaws (omissions) in your original premise.

Flaw 1:

I am well aware that there are operational considerations that take place outside of the context of the adventuring "day". In my analysis, I folded long-term resources (PC death, arrows, potions, etc.) into per-day resources only to make the analyis cleaner (and hence, I hoped, clearer).

If you like, you could add permanent resources, do the same analysis, and change every instance of "per-day" with "per-day or permanent" and the conclusion would be the same.

Flaw 2:

See above.

In addition, please read my comments to TwoSix, a couple of posts above this one, which (I believe) answer your objections.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

... which implies your analysis is irrelevant.

In the event that you choose to contribute something meaningful, I'll be happy to respond to you. Otherwise, I hope you'll understand if I simply ignore your posts.

RC

 

[gizmo33]

There is more than one way to derive fun from a fight, if you object to the notion that every fight has to be risky. Which was what you were complaining about, if you might recall.

What I was complaining about is that "every fight has to be risky" was clearly the premise of Wyatt's argument, and yours on the occasion when you think it will support your conclusion, and not when you think it supports mine. I pretty clearly asked for clarification on what seemed to be an inconsistency, and rather than clarify you're trying to remind me of your hazy ideas of what I've tried to say on this thread.

 

[hong]

I am well aware that there are operational considerations that take place outside of the context of the adventuring "day". In my analysis, I folded long-term resources (PC death, arrows, potions, etc.) into per-day resources only to make the analyis cleaner (and hence, I hoped, clearer).

If you like, you could add permanent resources, do the same analysis, and change every instance of "per-day" with "per-day or permanent" and the conclusion would be the same.

Yes. It would be ridiculous.

There are MANY reasons to have fights even if no daily resources are expended. I may want to demonstrate my super-badass skills against a horde of opponents, who even though mechanically are no match, are still (within the context of the game world) an overwhelming opponent for "normal" people. I may want to get something from someone, who doesn't want to give it up. I may have some plot hook to catch.

Yes, you can do all this within the confines of per-day balancing. But that's putting the cart before the horse.

 

[hong]

In the event that you choose to contribute something meaningful, I'll be happy to respond to you. Otherwise, I hope you'll understand if I simply ignore your posts.

You keep saying that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You keep saying that.

And yet you seldom take me up on it.

 

[hong]

What I was complaining about is that "every fight has to be risky" was clearly the premise of Wyatt's argument, and yours on the occasion when you think it will support your conclusion, and not when you think it supports mine.

To be precise, every fight has to be fun. That happens to coincide, a lot of the time, with every fight has to be risky. Not all the time, gross oversimplifications notwithstanding.

 

[hong]

And yet you seldom take me up on it.

Think of it as character building.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To be precise, every fight has to be fun. That happens to coincide, a lot of the time, with every fight has to be risky. Not all the time, gross oversimplifications notwithstanding.

BTW, I agree with you here.

I am guessing that you don't have the "9-9:15 adventuring day" problem, and neither does Jackalope King. If you use other thesholds of significance in addition to the mechanical theshold, you will have a more varied and more interesting game. If the PCs have a reason to continue, either because of some reward that continuation will bring or some danger of resting, the PCs are liable to continue (or at least, the decision to rest or continue will be a meaningful one).

These factors are regardless of edition, though. The redesign that Wyatt discusses in his blog does not address these factors; it addresses other factors with which he expects the problem to be resolved for those who have it.

If you do not understand what causes a problem like this, it is difficult to resolve it. Wyatt's blog implies that he doesn't understand the cause of the problem. Moreover, analysis of Wyatt's solution shows that it is unlikely to resolve the problem if you have that problem to begin with.

Had Wyatt instead said "We are going to resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem by putting a risk/reward factor (back) into making the decision to rest or not" then I would feel that he both understood the problem, and was presenting a clear solution.


RC

 

[hong]

These factors are regardless of edition, though. The redesign that Wyatt discusses in his blog does not address these factors; it addresses other factors with which he expects the problem to be resolved for those who have it.

Of course 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.

Why, I get the feeling I might have said this before.

Furthermore, by explicitly designing the game around per-encounter, they also remove the issue of classes that can overshadow everyone else by blowing their load all at once. Which I might also have said before.