Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

I'm sorry, but as you wrote this, it's borderline incomprehensible. You seem to be saying that you can always regain an offensive ability but not always regain damage, so every single offensive ability (even the most powerful ones) are less valuable than any healing ability. That doesn't make any sense.

If a player wants to utilize the minimum amount of resources to reduce an opponent to a helpless condition in the minimum amount of time possible, and the reason players want to minimize their resource expenditure is because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource, it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible.

If players also don't want to waste a turn, when they try something and nothing beneficial happens, they want to try whatever is most likely to work. This is why there is usually a minimum theshold of effectiveness for resources. Using the resource most likely to incapacitate the enemy is the easiest way to ensure that you do not waste a turn, and thus are not disappointed.

It is also the easiest way to keep the combat short, and thereby minimize damage to themselves to avoid vulnerability.

Players tend to measure the cost to spend a resource in the hopes of ending a fight more quickly versus the cost of healing magic restoring later. In other words, they want to minimize their costs while maximizing their benefit. As a result of this, you'll hear players rationalize saving a charge on their wand of fireball when someone points out that, "This guy is only doing like 8 damage, and we've got a wand of cure light wounds anyway."

But there is a cost to using the wand of fireball because it is a non-renewing resource. If the players could cast that fireball in every encounter, it would cost less than the wand of cure light wounds. When players can use their offensive resources in every encounter, the cost of offensive resources is as low or lower than healing magic.

If all of your offensive abilities reset between encounters, this is true.

If I can rest and recover all spells, and I can do it without difficulty or worry between every encounter, then it is never less costly to recover from injury than to recover offensive resources.

Moreover, within the context of a single round in a hit point system, I will never die because I used all of my offensive resources as a direct cause, but I will die because I lost all my hit points as a direct cause. Where resources are recoverable between encounters, failure to use a resource within a given encounter is far more likely to kill you than doing maximum damage every round, starting with highest damage potential to lowest.

IOW, for it to be true that it is sometimes more acceptable to allow an enemy to injure you for three rounds rather than end the fight in one simply because the means to recover from those injuries is less costly than the means to end the fight in one round, there must first be a cost to ending the fight in one round.

I guess it never occured to you that those examples (the chase example and the social combat example) were resolved mechanically then.

I am no longer reading pemerton's posts, so it would be difficult to know their contents.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

A non-mechanical example of this would be a puzzle like the riddle at the entrance to Moria in Fellowship. In a roleplaying game, you could say that the characters in the Fellowship were at little mechanical risk in this challenge, but it still served as a challenge for their players.

How does this contradict what I said?

Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is. IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. Within the context of a role-playing game, there are many types of loss possible. Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources. (Understand, of course, that I include life, mobility, and so on as "resources" -- a "resource" in this context is anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game.)​

In more-mechanical examples, something like a chase (with actual chase rules, which include different options for catching/evading) where the PCs must capture an enemy before he gets out of the city. Odds are, the PCs are in very little mechanical risk in such an encounter, but it can still be a very exciting challenge to the players, who need to plan their chase carefully if they want to aprehend their target.

Again,

there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources.​

I.e., within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, the only "loss" is loss of resources. Mechanics might be used to resolve another type of "loss" (relating to story, etc.) but it isn't a mechanical loss.

IOW, "mechanical abilities/qualities = resources", and "loss of mechanical abilities/qualities = loss of resources".

Or, perhaps it would have been more clear as

there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, mechanical loss is loss of resources.​

EDIT: I should probably also mentioned the existence of non-mechanical resources, such as information, because it is germaine to an actual solution to the 15-minute adventuring day problem, if not relevant to the solution Wyatt suggests.

Clearer?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

That may be part of the misunderstanding. I'm discussing game design, not game mechanics. Mechanics are part of game design, to be sure, but not the alpha and omega of it.

Whereas I'm only discussing one subset of mechanics/design: Will per-encounter abilities resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem for those who experienced it in 3.X, as claimed by Wyatt's blog?

 

[pemerton]

Thank you for articulating one of the things I've been trying to get at - characters != players.

No worries.

And I still maintain the test of a GMs skill is not in killing the characters, it's not killing the characters. Anyone can achieve TPK with little effort. It's challenging the players that the GM should aspire to.

Agreed - and in general I agree with your other posts too (especially about the relationship between per-encounter and adventure design).

 

[pemerton]

If a player wants to utilize the minimum amount of resources to reduce an opponent to a helpless condition in the minimum amount of time possible, and the reason players want to minimize their resource expenditure is because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource, it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible.

A small point of logic.

You argue:

If players choose A, and the reason for choosing A is B, and not B, then it follows that players will not choose A.​

This inference is valid only if a further premise is asserted (or presupposed), namely, that in the absence of B no other reason emerges that supports players choosing A.

Until we know how per-encounter powers are designed, we cannot know whether or not that premise is true - but Wyatt's remarks about effective power design suggest to me that the designers have this issue in mind, and are working on it.

 

[pemerton]

I am no longer reading pemerton's posts, so it would be difficult to know their contents.

The examples Jackelope refers to are his, not mine.

How does this contradict what I said?

Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is. IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. Within the context of a role-playing game, there are many types of loss possible. Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources. (Understand, of course, that I include life, mobility, and so on as "resources" -- a "resource" in this context is anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game.)​

<snip>

there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources.​

I.e., within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, the only "loss" is loss of resources. Mechanics might be used to resolve another type of "loss" (relating to story, etc.) but it isn't a mechanical loss.

IOW, "mechanical abilities/qualities = resources", and "loss of mechanical abilities/qualities = loss of resources".

Or, perhaps it would have been more clear as

there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, mechanical loss is loss of resources.​

First, there can be mechanical losses which are not the loss of resources - Jackelope King gave the example above of conditions. You asserted above that this materially affects resources. But it does not affect them by reducing them. For example, a penalty of -2 on all attack and damage rolls, checks and saves does not affect the range or number of resources that a 3E fighter has available, just their potency.

Second, within the context of the mechanics of a roleplaying game there can be losses which are not themselves mechanical as all, as Jackelope King has pointed out. For example, the resolution of a social challenge might result in the PC making an enemy when s/he had hoped to win an ally. This is a loss, and it is the result of the action resolution mechanics, but it is not itself a mechanical loss (assuming that the game is not one in which alliances and enmities are themselves represented in mechanical terms).

Unless, of course, when you say that "a resource is anything that you can use to mechanically affect a game" you really intend to be taken literally. Because in that case, every arrangement of every in-game person and object, and every in-game event, is a resource, because all can mechanically affect the game in some way or other (eg enemies can set foes on a PC). But if that is so, then no RPG I'm aware of has pure per-encounter resources, because no RPG I'm aware of resets the gameworld after every encounter. And in terms of the 15-minute adventuring day, these omni-present resource considerations would seem easily sufficient to give the players a reason not always to lead with their per-day resources, even if (contrary to what I believe will be the case) no such constraint emerged within the internal logic of the action resolution mechanics.

 

[hong]

The examples Jackelope refers to are his, not mine.

It's just RC's way of saying that he doesn't love you anymore.

 

[Jackelope King]

If a player wants to utilize the minimum amount of resources to reduce an opponent to a helpless condition in the minimum amount of time possible, and the reason players want to minimize their resource expenditure is because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource, it follows that if they don't have to worry about being at greater risk at a later time, then they don't worry about minimizing their resource expenditure and only do whatever reduces an opponent as quickly as possible.

If players also don't want to waste a turn, when they try something and nothing beneficial happens, they want to try whatever is most likely to work. This is why there is usually a minimum theshold of effectiveness for resources. Using the resource most likely to incapacitate the enemy is the easiest way to ensure that you do not waste a turn, and thus are not disappointed.

It is also the easiest way to keep the combat short, and thereby minimize damage to themselves to avoid vulnerability.

Players tend to measure the cost to spend a resource in the hopes of ending a fight more quickly versus the cost of healing magic restoring later. In other words, they want to minimize their costs while maximizing their benefit. As a result of this, you'll hear players rationalize saving a charge on their wand of fireball when someone points out that, "This guy is only doing like 8 damage, and we've got a wand of cure light wounds anyway."

But there is a cost to using the wand of fireball because it is a non-renewing resource. If the players could cast that fireball in every encounter, it would cost less than the wand of cure light wounds. When players can use their offensive resources in every encounter, the cost of offensive resources is as low or lower than healing magic.

If all of your offensive abilities reset between encounters, this is true.

If I can rest and recover all spells, and I can do it without difficulty or worry between every encounter, then it is never less costly to recover from injury than to recover offensive resources.

Moreover, within the context of a single round in a hit point system, I will never die because I used all of my offensive resources as a direct cause, but I will die because I lost all my hit points as a direct cause. Where resources are recoverable between encounters, failure to use a resource within a given encounter is far more likely to kill you than doing maximum damage every round, starting with highest damage potential to lowest.

IOW, for it to be true that it is sometimes more acceptable to allow an enemy to injure you for three rounds rather than end the fight in one simply because the means to recover from those injuries is less costly than the means to end the fight in one round, there must first be a cost to ending the fight in one round.

If and only if you can regain the ability immediately following an encounter with no cost. This was a problem in 3e with casters novaing and spending a day's worth of resources quickly and then resting, avoiding the power curve designers predicted which would bring casters into line with non-casters.

I am no longer reading pemerton's posts, so it would be difficult to know their contents.

First, you're doing yourself a tremendous disservice by ignoring pemerton. He's been making quite a few points which really do shed new light on the situation. And I was the one who mentioned the chase and the social combat.

How does this contradict what I said?

Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is. IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. Within the context of a role-playing game, there are many types of loss possible. Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources. (Understand, of course, that I include life, mobility, and so on as "resources" -- a "resource" in this context is anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game.)​

Interestingly, your definition closely mirrors my own. You are including "anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game", which would include resources which are infinite-use and can be renewed instantly.

Again,

there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources.​

I.e., within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, the only "loss" is loss of resources. Mechanics might be used to resolve another type of "loss" (relating to story, etc.) but it isn't a mechanical loss.

IOW, "mechanical abilities/qualities = resources", and "loss of mechanical abilities/qualities = loss of resources".

Or, perhaps it would have been more clear as

there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss. Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, mechanical loss is loss of resources.​

EDIT: I should probably also mentioned the existence of non-mechanical resources, such as information, because it is germaine to an actual solution to the 15-minute adventuring day problem, if not relevant to the solution Wyatt suggests.

Clearer?


RC

Much. You agree that resources can be modified even if they aren't loss, a point which pemerton makes much more clearly than I have:

First, there can be mechanical losses which are not the loss of resources - Jackelope King gave the example above of conditions. You asserted above that this materially affects resources. But it does not affect them by reducing them. For example, a penalty of -2 on all attack and damage rolls, checks and saves does not affect the range or number of resources that a 3E fighter has available, just their potency.

Second, within the context of the mechanics of a roleplaying game there can be losses which are not themselves mechanical as all, as Jackelope King has pointed out. For example, the resolution of a social challenge might result in the PC making an enemy when s/he had hoped to win an ally. This is a loss, and it is the result of the action resolution mechanics, but it is not itself a mechanical loss (assuming that the game is not one in which alliances and enmities are themselves represented in mechanical terms).

Unless, of course, when you say that "a resource is anything that you can use to mechanically affect a game" you really intend to be taken literally. Because in that case, every arrangement of every in-game person and object, and every in-game event, is a resource, because all can mechanically affect the game in some way or other (eg enemies can set foes on a PC). But if that is so, then no RPG I'm aware of has pure per-encounter resources, because no RPG I'm aware of resets the gameworld after every encounter. And in terms of the 15-minute adventuring day, these omni-present resource considerations would seem easily sufficient to give the players a reason not always to lead with their per-day resources, even if (contrary to what I believe will be the case) no such constraint emerged within the internal logic of the action resolution mechanics.

It's just RC's way of saying that he doesn't love you anymore.

That's so anime.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Whereas I'm only discussing one subset of mechanics/design: Will per-encounter abilities resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem for those who experienced it in 3.X, as claimed by Wyatt's blog?

Purely per encounter based abilities? Yes. There is no point to rest after 15 minutes of fighting. The only reason to rest might be other things (needing to rest for leveling, overland-travel and so on)

A mixed system: Depends on how important the per day resources are. If they represent 20 % of the fighting power, this means you can "overextend" your expected resources per encounter only by these 20 %. Sounds like good limit, it is far from the +200 % (EL = PL+4) to 400 % (EL=PL) difference possible in 3rd edition. (Remember: EL=PL costs 25 % of resources, which means I have 4 times as much resources as I need at my disposable. EL = PL +4 gives a 50 % success chance, indicating I will lose 50 % of my resources, so I have still twice as much resources as absolutely required)

Usage of daily based resources is always guided by attrition concerns - will I need them at a later time more than I need them now. If they only add +20% to my power, the answer is probably that good tactics mean that I won't need them, and can use them when things get really tough and/or my group made tactically bad choices (or just had a string of bad rolls)
Now, if I don't care about good tactics and just enjoy shooting my most powerful spells around, the 20 % might be used up in my first encounter. But will they suffice? I got only a 20 % power boost, not a +300 % boost...

 

[shilsen]

I am no longer reading pemerton's posts, so it would be difficult to know their contents.

You know, I never even thought of taking that approach. If I skip over all your posts this thread suddenly starts making sense again

Whereas I'm only discussing one subset of mechanics/design: Will per-encounter abilities resolve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem for those who experienced it in 3.X, as claimed by Wyatt's blog?

Purely per encounter based abilities? Yes. There is no point to rest after 15 minutes of fighting. The only reason to rest might be other things (needing to rest for leveling, overland-travel and so on)

A mixed system: Depends on how important the per day resources are.

You know, Mustrum, you have to stop saying things succinctly and accurately. It makes everyone else look bad. The bit I quoted above could - and should - replace some 30 of the pages on this thread.

In short - QFT.