Why is it so important?

[gizmo33]

I did see enough other people running games to suspect that the deadliness of a game has more to do with what the DM wants, than anything else.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. With the addition that it makes anecdotal experiences hard to evaluate from the player perspective, since generally only the DM knows how the system was affecting his ability to maintain the fatality rate the way he wanted it. The players IME typically don't see the numbers involved.

Likewise, loss of an operational resource is one obvious thing that can be signficant short of death. Taking these away could encourage a subset of DMs to become more deadly.

I think it would encourage almost all DMs to be more deadly, because they would think of most encounters in terms of "is this worth having? ie. is this dangerous enough to be interesting". Now encouragement doesn't mean that DMs wouldn't find a way to compensate. To continue your alchohol analogy - alchohol never brings out the "good driver" in anyone, it creates a set of circumstances that can be overcome but at a greater level of challenge.

So yes, I think deadliness is inherent in a system that is saying "the main thing of significance in an encounter is it's chance of inflicting death". I believe that removing operational considerations from encounters creates this effect. The result follows.

 

[Jackelope King]

I've opened the new thread here.

 

[Grog]

It does, in fact, change that. If you "ambush" the resting 20th level PCs with a single kobold scout, you would not have a TPK on your hands. This case might be extreme but it is sufficient for showing the existence of a counter example, and most likely a range of counter examples. The fact that you can make patrols easy in the design can mean that the patrols are manageable/escapable by the PCs, and thus not any more of a guarrantee of a TPK than any other encounter.

If the PCs can beat the ambush encounter, then it won't discourage them from resting. So nothing has changed.

In order for a potential wandering monster encounter to provide a disincentive to resting, it has to pose a threat to the PCs. And when the PCs have used up all their resources, anything that presents a threat to them is pretty much guaranteed to wipe them out, barring incredible good luck on their part.

 

[gizmo33]

If the PCs can beat the ambush encounter, then it won't discourage them from resting. So nothing has changed.

I agree. But then your premise doesn't really resemble mine. You talked about 100% certainty of a TPK, and now you're suggesting that I'm saying the encounter would be a 0% chance of any bad outcome. Somewhere in the middle is what I meant, and is appropriate to the point I'm making.

In order for a potential wandering monster encounter to provide a disincentive to resting, it has to pose a threat to the PCs.

And in a resource management system, that "threat" can often be to the PCs resources, thus the reason that assuming it must be the threat of a TPK seems more in the habit of the "per-encounter" mode of thinking.

And when the PCs have used up all their resources, anything that presents a threat to them is pretty much guaranteed to wipe them out, barring incredible good luck on their part.

First, I think you mean "anything that presents a threat to the party when they are fully rested". I find that reasoning to be somewhat circular. I said that the dungeon design for an adventure must take into account that the area scouts could well be encountering a party at less than it's full strength. Otherwise yes, anything capable of killing the party will stand a chance of killing the party.

A single kobold that runs away and brings stronger monsters is even a threat in a resource management game. In the "per-encounter" resource paradigm, that single kobold is of no consequence unless the help he brings manages to be of a power sufficient to pose a threat to a fully-rested party. The range of subtlety in the resource management game AFAICT is greater than I've been able to get across.

 

[Grog]

And in a resource management system, that "threat" can often be to the PCs resources,

Not if the PCs resources are already used up it can't, as would be the case when they were resting (given the basic premise that the PCs are resting after four CR-appropriate encounters as the 3.X system assumes they will).

First, I think you mean "anything that presents a threat to the party when they are fully rested". I find that reasoning to be somewhat circular. I said that the dungeon design for an adventure must take into account that the area scouts could well be encountering a party at less than it's full strength.

There are many varying degrees of "less than full strength." What we're talking about here is a party with basically no strength remaining. Unless the patrols are ludicrously weak compared to the rest of the dungeon, any encounter at that point is extremely likely to result in a TPK.

But, say that the party does get ambushed and manages to survive the encounter. What are they going to do at that point? Try to rest again. They'll probably try to get to somewhere safer this time, but they have no other choice. So at best, wandering monsters will not change the "rest after four encounters" paradigm at all, and at worst, you have TPKs on a regular basis. It's no solution.

 

[IanArgent]

I guess I didn't make my point plain - in a game with NO resource management (Shadowrun) it is entirely possible to have fun, exciting, and interesting encounters than span the gamut from easy to OMGWTFBBQ! The biggest difference? OMGWTFBBQ can happen before the easy encounter. And that is the one of the better things about going away from per-day only. You can have the OMGWTFBBQ encounter at the beginning of the day, when the party has to "nova" to beat it, and they're still capable of going on and taking on somewhat lesser encounters.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I guess I didn't make my point plain - in a game with NO resource management (Shadowrun) it is entirely possible to have fun, exciting, and interesting encounters than span the gamut from easy to OMGWTFBBQ! The biggest difference? OMHWTFBBQ can happen before the easy encounter. And that is the one of the better things about going away from per-day only. You can have the OGMWTFBBQ encounter at the beginning of the day, when the party has to "nova" to beat it, and they're still capable of going on and taking on somewhat lesser encounters.

My experiences with different games that lack the level of resource management that D&D has, agrees with your assessment...but, your acronym keeps changing.

 

[IanArgent]

Sorry about that - fixed.

 

[pemerton]

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.

You asserted at your post #502 that "If a battle does not use up per-day resources, nothing is lost in engaging in that battle. This means . . . [t]he only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff."

I deny this. There can be other significant impacts, namely thematic ones.

Jackelope King also denies it, though he has referred to story/plot impacts rather than thematic ones (not that these two categories are mutually exclusive):

I'd ask that you give a reason why the non-personal resources I describe are, in fact, irrelevant, in the roleplaying genre.

As for the following:

Every encounter in a per-day model is "significant" because the total effect they have upon a character must always be considered.

This is true. But it doesn't show that every encounter in a per-encounter model will not be signficant, because it doesn't show that resource-consumption is that only dimension of significance.

It is correct that a per-encounter model discourages "encounters-for-the-sake-of-encounters" which do nothing but soak resources. But it is quite arguable that this is a sensible design goal (although to an extent it does push D&D away from its roots).

In your example majority of battles have to have a far-reaching or "thematic" purpose in order to produce impact. If this arrives naturally through gameplay then that's great...but I shouldn't have to institute melodrama(this sounds mighty close to railaoading) in every encounter for it to have impact.

There is a style of play which has nothing to do with railroading, and has everything to do with thematic exploration. This is a style in which the players determine the thematic priorities of play, and pursue those themes through their in-play choices. Many RPG systems have mechanics to support the players in doing these (eg TRoS's Spiritual Attributes). Gizmo33 and I discussed these above in a number of posts. He concluded that he does not enjoy this sort of "storyteller" game. That is fine - I get the sense that you don't either - but it has nothing to do with railroading. And it is a style of play which per-encounter abilities may better suppot.

 

[gizmo33]

Not if the PCs resources are already used up it can't, as would be the case when they were resting

No, that would be the case when *they're dead*. Hit points are a resource. Losing further hitpoints to a kobold scout is an example of losing further resources. The idea that the PCs would be at precisely 0% resources other than hitpoints is such an extreme case that I'm not sure what point it makes to assume that. A spare potion, a magic arrow, one single spell, etc. - all examples of resources that they could reasonably have. If they're really so bad off then they should leave the dangerous area as soon as they can - evade detection and hope for the best. Such is life when the possible results are something other than victory or death.

Unless the patrols are ludicrously weak compared to the rest of the dungeon, any encounter at that point is extremely likely to result in a TPK.

Well what if something runs through the threatened areas of 15 ogres while wearing only a loincloth? Is that a problem with the AoO rules? I'd say it's a problem with the player not making good choices.

A party that rests at 0% resources within enemy territory must cross it's fingers and hope for the best. Like they guy in the loincloth, it's not an example that I see much purpose in contemplating. Did I miss something? Does this situation make a case of some kind? I don't want to drop it if there's some significance here.

But, say that the party does get ambushed and manages to survive the encounter. What are they going to do at that point? Try to rest again.

Really? Your players must have a death wish. Mine would haul out of there if they weren't trying already. It was one thing to camp at 20% resources when you thought you might be able to deal with a scout patrol. It's another thing to be discovered by that patrol, take further hitpoints of damage, and face the possibility that a scout unknowingly was able to return to his leadership and inform them of your position. IME the party that gets ambushed and survives is going to flee the area.

They'll probably try to get to somewhere safer this time, but they have no other choice. So at best, wandering monsters will not change the "rest after four encounters" paradigm at all, and at worst, you have TPKs on a regular basis. It's no solution.

I think that tactical situation is more complicated than you are recognizing. If you don't play a resource management style game, perhaps there's a chance that you don't understand all of the situations that come up in such a game. IMO you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

What happens when the players don't rest until they're at 0% resources? Same thing that happens when someone gets hit with 5 critical hits in a row - probably something bad. Is that bad game design? Not necessarily - it's probably just bad luck (or if the criticals were a result of obvious AoOs) bad judgement.