Why is it so important?

[shilsen]

Reading things written in absolute terms always sets off alarm bells to me. If you were speaking "purely" about your game, then what reason would you have to make universal statements?

...

Now I don't see anything about "your game" in this statement. Since it's about resource attrition, which you supposedly don't use in your game, then it actually cannot be about your game. In fact, your statements above seemed to ping-pong back and forth between your personal experiences and universal ones.

Here's what I originally posted (bolded for emphasis):

"Actually, I meant boring from my POV as the DM (though generally as a player I find adventures based heavily around resource attrition boring too). Challenging PCs via resource attrition means the individual encounters don't have to be challenging on their own merits, but can simply soak up some resources and weaken the PCs for the next encounter, which can soak up some more resources, and so on. For me as a DM, that kind of thing is boring to run."

I thought those phrases were enough to indicate that I was referring to personal taste. Evidently not.

I interpreted "just right" to mean "just right" in terms of *something* because without that *something* the phrase means nothing to me. "Worse" was meant in that context. Now apparently "just right" doesn't mean anything comprehensible to any individual who is not you or your players.

I spelled out what "just right" means to me in an earlier post. Whether that's comprehensible to you or not is, well, an issue for you.

What does "trouble" mean in a game without death? Wedgies for all? Action points loss?

As I'd expanded on earlier, and as Mallus pointed out above, "trouble" can mean a whole host of things. It can mean the loss of something important to the PCs, the using up or destruction of valuable equipment or magic, their inability to achieve a particular goal, their inability to prevent an enemy from achieving a particular goal, their defeat and/or capture, etc.

 

[shilsen]

Is there any absolute loss, though, or do you just get to try to find the Grail and overthrow the king another time?

If, once you've failed the Grail Quest, you don't get another shot at it, then I'd agree that the game without death has equal (or perhaps greater) stakes than the game with death. Of course, if death is easily undone, then the game with death doesn't have very high stakes either.

Absolute loss is a matter of definition, isn't it? After all, even in a game with irrevocable death, presumably the player creates a new PC and keeps playing, so arguably that's not an absolute loss.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Absolute loss is a matter of definition, isn't it? After all, even in a game with irrevocable death, presumably the player creates a new PC and keeps playing, so arguably that's not an absolute loss.

If the game is structured so that progress occurs during the course of successful adventuring, i.e., 1+1+2+3+1+5, then anything that negates that progress is IMHO an absolute loss, i.e., 1+1+2, followed by death, either equals 4, upon which +3+1+5 can then follow, or it does not.

If there is a sequence of adventures, each with a value of 1, and death resets you to 0, then death includes an absolute loss, as when two players experience 20 adventures, the one who died in the 15th has a sum total of 5, while the one who did not die has 20.

In many games, there is an XP and/or level penalty when replacing a PC due to death. This is intended, AFAICT, to make some form of absolute loss occur with death. Of course, as I am sure diaglo can tell you, when you die in OD&D, your next character begins at level 1.

RC

 

[IanArgent]

This is true. I think that what is essential is to make resting/not resting an interesting choice, because it is a choice with consequences both good and not-so-good. IMHO, More Relevant Player Choices + Wider Range of Player Choices + Context + Consequence = Better Game.


Well, there is this difference, too. I believe that the story is what happens as a result of player choices and their consequences. I don't believe that it is generally appropriate for the DM to try to "force" a plan of "what will happen".

RC

Then you would have no problems with a storyline that resulted in TPK because the party used their resources inappropriately because of poor luck and there is no story-appropriate point for them to rest? IE, the targets made improbably lucky saves, or the damage/healing spells ended up resulting in improbably low HP output, etc. Because right now, if you have to use up as little as %5 extra resources over each encounter, and you are following the guideline of 4 encounters per adventuring day, the last encounter the party is seriously understrength for. On the other hand, if they had to use 5% less of their daily resources due to good luck or planning, they are significantly overstrength for that last encounter.

I have never understood, though this is a long standing issue, how an encounter that poses no risk to a PC (of either resource loss or loss of life) is of any mechanical interest. (I realize that an earlier example about your students attempted to show this, but I didn't quite get it.)

Maybe try with this extreme example. 4 20th level characters against 4 standard kobolds. The 20th level characters are at full power, and so they have a huge range of abilities to exercise. There's no chance of PC death. And we'll say there's no resource expenditure issues since it's the only encounter that day (and it probably doesn't even require that). My question is: how can you make this an encounter of "mechanical interest"? If this is a bad example, then why? What fundamental difference is there with any other encounter where PCs know they're going to win and know that there is no impact on their daily resources?

Story. the encounter can threaten something important to the character even if it doesn't threaten them directly, or it can threaten their ability to complete their mission without necessarily threatening the PCs life, limb, or resources.
IE, if one kobold is holding the only copy of the Necronomicon over the Pit of Despair, it doesn't matter than the kobolds have no chance of hurting any of the PCs, and that the PCs can utterly destroy the kobolds without breaking a sweat. He is a mechanically interesting challenge, in that you have to deploy the party to stop him from tossing the book into the pit; but he is no direct threat to the life or resources of the party, and they may in fact be able to stop him without using expendable resources (diplomacy, grapple, what-have-you).

Or replace the book with a hostage not of significance to the PCs directly (the maiden sacrifice from a nearby village, etc).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have never understood, though this is a long standing issue, how an encounter that poses no risk to a PC (of either resource loss or loss of life) is of any mechanical interest.

This has been asked, in many different ways, dozens of times. I am interested to see an actual answer.

Maybe try with this extreme example. 4 20th level characters against 4 standard kobolds. The 20th level characters are at full power, and so they have a huge range of abilities to exercise. There's no chance of PC death. And we'll say there's no resource expenditure issues since it's the only encounter that day (and it probably doesn't even require that). My question is: how can you make this an encounter of "mechanical interest"?

This was first asked, I believe, with a 10th level fighter and 4 goblins. I am interested to see an actual answer.

If this is a bad example, then why? What fundemental difference is there with any other encounter where PCs know they're going to win and know that there is no impact on their daily resources?

This has been asked before, too. I am interested to see an actual answer.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then you would have no problems with a storyline that resulted in TPK because the party used their resources inappropriately because of poor luck and there is no story-appropriate point for them to rest?

Not as a player; not as a DM.

Sometimes it is better for the party to realize that it can't stop the kobold holding the only copy of the Necronomicon over the Pit of Despair. In that case, it's better to get out while you've still got some oomph.

IMHO, the DM should never set the stakes of an adventure so that he is unwilling to accept the consequences of the PCs failing.....or simply choosing not to act.


RC

 

[Jackelope King]

This has been asked, in many different ways, dozens of times. I am interested to see an actual answer.



This was first asked, I believe, with a 10th level fighter and 4 goblins. I am interested to see an actual answer.



This has been asked before, too. I am interested to see an actual answer.


RC

Honestly, RC, the reason I stopped replying to this thread was questions like this. I thought I made it quite clear that you can still have an interesting, exciting encounter where the primary measure of importance isn't the resources which are expended/lost. You suggest otherwise.

There is a WORLD of difference between a 10th level fighter and four goblins (where there is, presumably, no challenge at all) and the encounter I ran in M&M just last night where the PCs were left after the encounter in exactly the same state, mechanically, they were before. Since you seem to equate the 10th level fighter and four goblins with any encounter where resource expenditure is minimized, I pose the following challenge to you:

Please tell me how the six rounds of combat, where the PCs were forced to contend with a water ninja's obscure effect, the Hellfire-controlling PC almost taking himself out of the fight when he stabbed an alternate-universe version of himself in the soul, federal agents stunning and trapping a shrinking hero in a specimen jar, and a squad of soldiers taking one of the heroes prisoner temporarily was of no "mechanical interest".

Please tell me how the Big Bad Evil Guy rolling so well for the first four rounds that he didn't take any damage, as well as one federal agent who took an absurd amount of punishment for those early rounds (again rolling extremely well), leaving the PCs seriously wondering whether or not they could win the fight, especially when an NPC psychic with them was rolling so poorly that he might as well not have been there (he couldn't hit the broad side of an anything) was of no "mechanical interest".

Please tell me how the enemies upending lab benches to use for cover to thwart the PC blasters' attacks, volatile chemicals exploding and harming PC and NPC alike, and the MacGuffin both groups were after (a rare primate) sitting in the middle of all of this chaos with his piddly +1 toughness save modifier was of no "mechanical interest".

The PCs were going through hero points, alright, but they were gaining them like crazy too, thanks to unforseen complications arising constantly (one PC fighting her archenemy, another having to fight his alternate self, a third being trapped in a lead-lined specimen container that blocked her powers). Indeed, even the luck controller (who by design must spend oodles of hero points) wound up right back to where he started after the fight, when an NPC snuck away with a box containing material which could be used to blackmail him.

Please tell me how this encounter was of no "mechanical significance".

And most importantly, please make sure your forward your response to my players, who told me that they greatly enjoyed the encounter last night and thought it was great fun. They apparently need to know that their encounter had no "mechanical significance", and that they should have simply ticked off resources instead and skipped the encounter. That's what you do with things that are insignificant, right?

 

[Mallus]

Is there any absolute loss, though, or do you just get to try to find the Grail and overthrow the king another time?

If the PC's fail to overthrow the king, the storyline changes, the PC's goals shift, and I imagine the characters would then become more heavily invested in getting the hell out of dodge and/or finding a safe haven for the surviving members of the rebellion, perhaps on a fabled lost continent. Now if some great and ancient weapon were found on said lost continent, or perhaps new, mysterious 'allies', then yes, the characters might get another crack at the evil king.

This is how we roll. Clearer, yes?

RC, removing death from the game isn't about ensuring the players 'win' all the time. It's not about removing challenge. It's tool for increasing player investment in the campaign, by allowing them to hang onto their favorite 'playing piece' (and the attendant storyline that piece is involved in).

 

[Mallus]

This has been asked, in many different ways, dozens of times. I am interested to see an actual answer.

re: how can fights without the potential loss of life/resources be mechanically interesting.

RC, I suspect you know the answer to this one. Earlier in the thread you admitted liking Mutants and Masterminds. Did you enjoy the game despite that fact the fact that it offered fights that by your definition where 'mechanically uninteresting'? If so, why did you play, that games all about superhero fightin'?

 

[IanArgent]

Then you would have no problems with a storyline that resulted in TPK because the party used their resources inappropriately because of poor luck and there is no story-appropriate point for them to rest?

Not as a player; not as a DM.

Really? Through no fault of their own, other than bad dice, the PCs expended more resources than the adventure designer was expecting, and cannot stand up to the final encounter. The adventure designer expected the PCs to be at, say, 50%% of effectiveness, and the previous encounters attritted them harder than the adventure designer expected, so the party is around 25% of effectiveness. or they got lucky and didn't get attritted as much as the adventure designer expected, and they can blow past the encounter because they have much more resources than the designer expected. That's the logical conclusion of your stance - at some point the PCs will hit an inappropriate encounter (either too easy or too hard) if the heavy hitting artillery/support is primarily per-day. Either the PCs are dead/hurting when they shouldn't be, or they blow past an encounter that should have challenged them.

Sometimes it is better for the party to realize that it can't stop the kobold holding the only copy of the Necronomicon over the Pit of Despair. In that case, it's better to get out while you've still got some oomph.

IMHO, the DM should never set the stakes of an adventure so that he is unwilling to accept the consequences of the PCs failing.....or simply choosing not to act.


RC

In this case, it's not the consequences of the adventure, it's the consequences of the encounter. With the current setup, you can end up with an encounter that was designed for the PCs to succeed with only moderate effort expended, but since (for whatever reason) they don't have the right resources available (expended earlier in the day because of poor dice, say) they have no chance of success.

But to avoid that, you set up an encounter that doesn't require them to have any particular per-day resource, the presence or lack thereof of that resource is unimportant.

The current system can fail both ways, the same encounter can be either too easy, or too hard, depending on the "path" the party took to get to that point. By itself, changing the primary resource management level to per-encounter, this isn't fixed - but it is an example of the ame design theory going into 4ed to prevent this problem. There is a post today from Chris Thomasson:

I kind of botched the first encounter we tested, to be honest, even though I almost gakked the rogue. I should have added another bandit to the encounter. That's the beauty of running in 4th for the DM. Scaling encounters is incredibly easy. I mean, you can actually take a balanced encounter, scale it up or down on the fly (as in, crack open your MM and pick a monster of the appropriate level), and still have a balanced encounter. I just forgot. I'm still approaching encounters with a 3E mindset, at times. But I'm getting better each session.

Every time it comes up on the dev blogs, the "workload" of DMs is being decreased, the "target" for adventure designers is being tightened up so that the adventure designer doesn't have to guess at the party's current capability, and the on-the-fly tweakability is being made easier. The mechanics are being made more predictable, so that the "variability" can be in the RP side of things.