Why is it so important?

[Jackelope King]

Some of your earlier comments seem to be in support of some general ideas on this thread that I've found to be argumentative and misleading. It's entirely possible that you just didn't see the context to these earlier statements in the same way that I did and that your support of them was meant differently than I took it. I'll just focus on the stuff of substance that you're writing and make less of my interpretations. I'm sorry - it seems likely that I've misunderstood your intentions.

No worries! Just trying to calm things down a little bit... discussions are always more fruitful when people are reasonable, and I'm earnestly interested in seeing where this one goes.

 

[gizmo33]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#fatigued
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#exhausted

The *existence* of some kind of fatigue rules doesn't establish, IMO, that hitpoints do not include fatigue in what they model. AFAIK the fatigue rules don't apply to basic combat, just some special circumstances like barbarian rage and spell effects. I think it's a consequence of the history of hitpoints as being an abstraction of this combination of effects in earlier editions. I'm not familiar with how 3E explicitly describes them but the basic mechanics of combat in 3E haven't changed, and so I would expect the attributes that are being used to model the same things.

That's fine. In my experience, it's proven to be much easier to track a small number of conditions like Injury, Fatigue, etc. than it is to track (and more specifically, prepare) a huge pool of resources.

The condition doesn't really do anything though, it's the modifiers to the various other abilities and stuff that the condition applies to, and it's remembering and applying those modifiers that IME is harder than the relatively simpler task of keeping track of a single number (hit points). My comments apply to DnD though, I don't know how this system works out in other games.


I had no intent of being "super aggressive and hyperbolic". I will do my best to tone this down, and I appologize.

See above. I am not trying to insult/attack/tromp over you. I was being friendly and encouraging you to see what others have to say. I'm honestly interested in what they find because I'm always looking for good reads (even if I don't have the time to read them) and for new ways to look at the game.

Me too. I started out as slightly skeptical (edit: ok, slightly is an exaggeration) but interested about an assertion that Hong was defending regarding movies and novels. As post after post failed to do anything other than let one rather vague example trickle out, I wound up feeling like this whole "find me an example" thing was just a tactic. And *right* after I tried to remind folks that my earlier requests for examples had been brushed aside, it's when I read your unfortunately (for me) timed statement about me doing more reading. Like I said, I think I over-reacted because of the proximity and similarity of your comments to others. The thing about examples is that, like you point out, even if they don't support my argument they're at least interesting to read about in their own right.

 

[Mallus]

Did you go to the Hong school of riddling and obfuscation?

No, I'm self-taught

Clearly some of the people here feel that DnD doesn't support the magic system found in novels, so how can it be "the rules"? Are you supporting them, contradicting them, or saying something else entirely?

I've always called D&D a fantasy novel simulator.

Therefore, it's not a question of providing pointers to make the game into a fantasy novel simulator. It's already one.

Ergo, the rules can be seen as the 'pointers' you requested.

Also, I think the game can be made into a better fantasy novel simulator. Altering the encounter model and related resource attrition paradigm seems like a good place to start.

Clearer?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are correct. This was more in reference to RC's analysis where he concludes that an encounter that doesn't consume per-day resources is irrelevant.

This is a misrepresentation of my position.

I think I was very clear that non-mechanical thresholds of significance were not relevant only in terms of my analysis, which seeks to examine the logical consequences of changing the existing mechanical threshold.

An encounter that doesn't consume per-day resources is not irrelevant, but is insignificant in terms of mechanical threshold of significance in a system that combines per-day and per-encounter resources, barring some other factor (such as a risk/reward ratio to resting) that makes it significant.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

We are getting closer to the same page, RC. I'm not claiming that every single blade of grass need be statted or that absolute lock-step adherence to the words of any novelist are even desireable. What I am claiming is that the resource management system (magic specifically in this case), while suitable for representing the fantastic, is not necessarily the best (either in terms of modeling the genre or in terms of rules... we've both houseruled it ).

Because I've houseruled aspects of a resource-management system does not mean that I agree that a resource-management system is not necessarily the best type of model.

If I am choosing between overarching systems A and B, each of which has several subsystems, it is quite possible to say that A is better than B, even though A has some subsystems that need work, or even in the case that B has several subsystems that are superior to A's subsystems.


RC

 

[Jackelope King]

This is a misrepresentation of my position.

I think I was very clear that non-mechanical thresholds of significance were not relevant only in terms of my analysis, which seeks to examine the logical consequences of changing the existing mechanical threshold.

An encounter that doesn't consume per-day resources is not irrelevant, but is insignificant in terms of mechanical threshold of significance in a system that combines per-day and per-encounter resources, barring some other factor (such as a risk/reward ratio to resting) that makes it significant.

RC

I appologize. I did not intend to misrepresent your position. However, I must also still conclude that if your logical analysis does not include the reality of non-personal resources, then it isn't sufficient to resolve the question.

Because I've houseruled aspects of a resource-management system does not mean that I agree that a resource-management system is not necessarily the best type of model.

If I am choosing between overarching systems A and B, each of which has several subsystems, it is quite possible to say that A is better than B, even though A has some subsystems that need work, or even in the case that B has several subsystems that are superior to A's subsystems.

RC

That's not a problem. Would it be more accurate to say that you hold that a per-day resource management system is superior because it allows for attrition, which is necessary to make encounters significant in actual gameplay?

 

[Mieric]

Hmmm... thinking 'bout that... what about a "Tome of Vancian Magic" released shortly after 4E, perhaps even by a 3rd-party-publisher (assuming quality work)... perhaps from Necromancer Games (with the new tagline: "4th Edition rules, 3rd edition feel!")?

I see the possibility that such a product will pop up soon after 4E. Would you buy and use it? (sheer curiosity)

Definately, as it would save me from having to do it for myself.

 

[helium3]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond, I decided to take a break from this thread. My problems wih SW(and they aren't "problems" in so far as the game emulates the genre) isd that...

Thanks for the response. It took me a while but I finally found where you linked to that thread on rpg.net. Once their server is back up i'll take a look at it.

What was your player's response to combat not being very threatening in most cases? My hunch is that they thought it was cool at first because they felt so "badass" but then got bored with it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I appologize. I did not intend to misrepresent your position. However, I must also still conclude that if your logical analysis does not include the reality of non-personal resources, then it isn't sufficient to resolve the question.

To resolve what question?

That's not a problem. Would it be more accurate to say that you hold that a per-day resource management system is superior because it allows for attrition, which is necessary to make encounters significant in actual gameplay?

No.

It would be more accurate to say that I hold that a per-day resource management system is superior because it allows for attrition, which is an importent means for making encounters significant in actual gameplay if your game is intended to model classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

My hunch is that they thought it was cool at first because they felt so "badass" but then got bored with it.

That is my expectation as well.


RC