Why is it so important?

[Mallus]

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.

But is it a necessary means? Couldn't an attrition-free system like the one in M&M work just as well?

Your stated upthread that the reason you didn't like M&M for fantasy games was related to verisimilitude, not the gameplay choices offered.

 

[Jackelope King]

To resolve what question?

Overall, the question of whether per-encounter resources are at least as good as if not better than per-day resources for a D&D game.

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

My thanks for the clarification.

I believe that my earlier point that there is a difference between being "out of resources" and "being tired" is important here, since classic fantasy and adventure fiction heroes generally tend to rest because of fatigue or injuries, not because they've run out of a finite, personal resource. In that regard, I feel that it's not a good fit for most fiction that D&D is based upon. Rather, I feel that this per-day system imposes artificial restrictions on what the DM and the group can accomplish in a day in a way that simply isn't found in the genres the game attempts to emulate, and the system which the designers describe is a good compromise that still allows for resource management (admittedly focused on each individual encounter, which in my mind is good to make each encounter more significant and exciting) while minimizing the need to rest due to artificial restrictions and disrupt the pace of the game.

This is how the per-day resource system impacts upon my style of gameplay, where when the PCs rest, the world carries on. We can summarize the whole thing by saying, "You rest for eight hours," which takes a second, but the rest of the world doesn't stop when the PCs do. I guess I'm more of a simmulationist than a gamist in terms of modeling a world that reacts realistically to the actions of the PCs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But is it a necessary means? Couldn't an attrition-free system like the one in M&M work just as well?

A purely attrition-free system would sidestep the problem of resting to regain resources after an hour of adventuring, certainly. However, I don't believe that an attrition-free system would work as well for D&D overall.

Of course, my D&D models classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy fiction. You could certainly do Harry Potter, for example, without attrition, or Charles de Lint. Lack of attrition, though, damages any attempt to create a world in which Conan, John Carter, etc., would feel "at home" in.

IMHO, resource manangement is a large part of what made early D&D successful, and it is an important mechanical part of having encounters with beings that cannot kill the heroes by themselves nonetheless having mechanical significance within the context of the game.

To some degree, players are always going to make choices on the basis of the rules, and therefore IMHO verisimilitude is inextricably linked to the gameplay choices offered.

 

[Jackelope King]

EDIT: Question was answered before I posted. Post removed for relevancy

 

[Jackelope King]

A purely attrition-free system would sidestep the problem of resting to regain resources after an hour of adventuring, certainly. However, I don't believe that an attrition-free system would work as well for D&D overall.

Of course, my D&D models classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy fiction. You could certainly do Harry Potter, for example, without attrition, or Charles de Lint. Lack of attrition, though, damages any attempt to create a world in which Conan, John Carter, etc., would feel "at home" in.

IMHO, resource manangement is a large part of what made early D&D successful, and it is an important mechanical part of having encounters with beings that cannot kill the heroes by themselves nonetheless having mechanical significance within the context of the game.

To some degree, players are always going to make choices on the basis of the rules, and therefore IMHO verisimilitude is inextricably linked to the gameplay choices offered.

A very fair response. However, do you believe that there will be zero attrition in the system the designers are talking about for 4e? Even M&M can have a degree of attrition if you choose to have it (very simply removing the Energizing extra on the Healing power, or not allowing it to heal non-damage conditions, like Drains), and True20 uses it in its spellcasting system (with actual fatigue). None of these are based on managing specific, packaged, expendible resources. In fact, I don't think it'd be too hard to use M&M to create a very appropriate Conan-esque game, where the heroes walk away from fights bloody and bruised and have to rest and recover because they're physically exhausted.

... it just wouldn't necessarily have to include expendible per-day resources.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Overall, the question of whether per-encounter resources are at least as good as if not better than per-day resources for a D&D game.

Ah. In that case, I say "No".

I believe that my earlier point that there is a difference between being "out of resources" and "being tired" is important here, since classic fantasy and adventure fiction heroes generally tend to rest because of fatigue or injuries, not because they've run out of a finite, personal resource.

Personal energy is a finite, personal resource. It is one of the things that hit points model.

In that regard, I feel that it's not a good fit for most fiction that D&D is based upon. Rather, I feel that this per-day system imposes artificial restrictions on what the DM and the group can accomplish in a day in a way that simply isn't found in the genres the game attempts to emulate

It depends, I suppose, on what genres you believe the game attempts to emulate. Certainly, there are anime in which characters can fight all day. Pokemon, for instance, supposes that the critters recharge on a "per-encounter" basis while resting in their tiny balls.

Most of the classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy fiction I've read suggests otherwise, however. While John Carter can fight green Martians with abandon, the toll of fighting wears him down whether it is in a single encounter or spread among several encounters. Likewise, while on the surface Conan might seem to have "per encounter" reserves, in practice, Conan is concerned with (i.e., treats as significant) encounters that would be mechanically insignificant in a per-encounter model.

Moreover, while you continue to use the term "artificial restrictions", you haven't quantified why these restrictions are artificial, but the restrictions within a given encounter are not. You say "I guess I'm more of a simmulationist than a gamist in terms of modeling a world that reacts realistically to the actions of the PCs" but I say that you seem more a storyteller or gamist than a simulationist, because what you are doing seems less a simulation and more an artificial construct for artificial story or game concerns.

Realistically, people really do suffer from attrition until being able to rest for a significant period of time (and often, until they can sleep). Damage doesn't fully heal between encounters, or even overnight. Straining one's mental resources to the utmost does require downtime to recover -- as any student cramming for exams or writing a thesis can tell you.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

However, do you believe that there will be zero attrition in the system the designers are talking about for 4e?

Obviously not, or I wouldn't have written so many pages analyzing why the per-encounter/per-day resource scheme was unlikely, by itself, to resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day.

RC

 

[Mallus]

A purely attrition-free system would sidestep the problem of resting to regain resources after an hour of adventuring, certainly.

It would. That's not my big issue with the attrition model, though. What I don't like is the overly predictable encounter structurel it pretty much forces on adventure design, and the fact that it works best in a static environment where the players basically control how much danger they face.

However, I don't believe that an attrition-free system would work as well for D&D overall.

Oh, it might not. But after all these pages of thread, I still haven't seen why? I keep falling back on thinking "'Gee, our M&M campaign is going swimmingly, even though Joseirus (the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling) can drop pyramids on Nazi's all day long."

Of course, my D&D models classic adventure fiction and classic fantasy fiction.

Mine models a somewhat more postmodern take on classic adventure fiction. Not that it's particularly relevant.

You could certainly do Harry Potter, for example, without attrition, or Charles de Lint.

Those are good examples. But you can certainly find more novels where you can infer a very loose resource management model for magic.

Lack of attrition, though, damages any attempt to create a world in which Conan, John Carter, etc., would feel "at home" in.

See, I just don't see how this relates to the resource depletion/challenge model in D&D. In D&D, the only resource worth tracking is magic, and neither play a role in Conan or John Carter's ability to kick ass. If anything, characters in traditional pulp action stories more closely map to a per-encounter model. They can tire themselves in a fight but recover superhumanly quickly. Plus, they have 'special moves' that only become available after they've been severely beaten/look down for the count...for my money, that's how you do Conan (doesn't Iron Heroes already use a mechanic like that?). Not through the standard attrition model.

To some degree, players are always going to make choices on the basis of the rules, and therefore IMHO verisimilitude is inextricably linked to the gameplay choices offered.

Sure. But some players find that the rules force them into making choices that hurt the sense of verisimilitude they're after. Choices they wouldn't have to make under a different challenge paradigm.

Put another way, it's nice when the mechanics reward you for playing the game in a manner you enjoy. Of course, this also works as a fool-proof argument for keeping a strict resource management...

 

[Jackelope King]

I think I'm also being unclear here, RC. I don't mind hit points being a measure of attrition. That's explicitly what they're for, and even though I prefer using conditions to model health (M&M, True20 damage track, etc.), these are a de facto limit that I'm more than willing to accept, because that is something you see in fiction. Heroes rest because injuries or fatigue prevent them from going on, not because they only prepared two fireballs today. Hit points do a good enough job at modeling this (and the idea of thresholds sounds like they might do even better in 4e).

My appologies for being unclear. I think we were talking past one another on the issue of hit points for too long.

 

[Mallus]

Even M&M can have a degree of attrition if you choose to have it...

Yes, you can run out of Hero Points...

In fact, I don't think it'd be too hard to use M&M to create a very appropriate Conan-esque game, where the heroes walk away from fights bloody and bruised and have to rest and recover because they're physically exhausted.

... it just wouldn't necessarily have to include expendible per-day resources.

Not hard at all...

It wouldn't have operational level resource management. And if that's what you're after, then the game's been diminished.