Why is it so important?

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Exactly my point, going back Lo these many pages.

If you want players to engage in a cost/benefit analysis of using particular resources, there must be a cost associated. In 3.X, the designers imagined that the cost would be loss of the resource for future encounters, because that was the paradigm that had worked in previous editions. However, at the same time, they removed nearly all of the cost associated with resting to regain that resource, and activley (via articles on the WotC site) solicited DMs to ignore/not use other costs (such as the chance of wandering monsters, deemed "unfun" in one particular article).

If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used.

you're doing yourself a tremendous disservice by ignoring pemerton.

I don't think so. For example:

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.

Now, given what pemerton was responding to, what are A and B in this context? I discuss players choosing to use resources, so the choice involved must be A. Presumably, then, A represents the non-use of a resource.

Now, as B is proposed as the cause of A, what do I claim is the causing players to avoid using that resource? Because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource.

Pemerton therefore argues that the conclusion (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) is only true if there is no other mitigating factor.

Clear and sensible, right?

Also a repetition of a previous poster (emphasis unchanged):

If I know that I have a significant chance of losing in any given encounter, and no other factor presents itself, I would be an idiot not to use my best abilities to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to use them. I am merely encouraged to use them.

If I know that the everage encounter includes a significant chance of losing, and no other factor presents itself, I would be an idiot not to ensure that I have my best abilities available to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to have them. I am merely encouraged to have them.​

Any idea who that poster was?

And, having made the same point many times in the past, do you honestly think that this (or any other) conversation would be well served by pedantically inserting every caveat into every post? I am already accused of making my responses too long.

So, no, I don't think these side trips are worthwhile.

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.

Yes. And, I would also say that modification of a resource that limits what you can do with a resource is a loss, even if only a temporary one. Loss doesn't need to be permanent to be loss.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Then, by all means, do so!

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.

My first post on this thread is a compliment of something Mustrum_Ridcully posted, and a hope that the design team does as well. Indeed, if Mustrum_Ridcully (and some other EN World luminaries) were on the design team, it would allay many of my fears.

RC

 

[hong]

Then, by all means, do so!

That's the worst attempt to get the last word I've ever seen.

My first post on this thread is a compliment of something Mustrum_Ridcully posted, and a hope that the design team does as well. Indeed, if Mustrum_Ridcully (and some other EN World luminaries) were on the design team, it would allay many of my fears.

But that was no fun.

 

[hong]

That's so anime.

No, it's munchkin. It would only be anime if a giant sweatdrop appeared in Crowking world when he did it.

 

[Jackelope King]

Exactly my point, going back Lo these many pages.

If you want players to engage in a cost/benefit analysis of using particular resources, there must be a cost associated. In 3.X, the designers imagined that the cost would be loss of the resource for future encounters, because that was the paradigm that had worked in previous editions. However, at the same time, they removed nearly all of the cost associated with resting to regain that resource, and activley (via articles on the WotC site) solicited DMs to ignore/not use other costs (such as the chance of wandering monsters, deemed "unfun" in one particular article).

If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used.

And why does that logic not apply to per-encounter resources?

I don't think so. For example:



Now, given what pemerton was responding to, what are A and B in this context? I discuss players choosing to use resources, so the choice involved must be A. Presumably, then, A represents the non-use of a resource.

Now, as B is proposed as the cause of A, what do I claim is the causing players to avoid using that resource? Because they percieve that they may be at greater risk at a later time without the less plentiful ("more expensive") resource.

Pemerton therefore argues that the conclusion (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) is only true if there is no other mitigating factor.

Clear and sensible, right?

Also a repetition of a previous poster (emphasis unchanged):

If I know that I have a significant chance of losing in any given encounter, and no other factor presents itself, I would be an idiot not to use my best abilities to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to use them. I am merely encouraged to use them.

If I know that the everage encounter includes a significant chance of losing, and no other factor presents itself, I would be an idiot not to ensure that I have my best abilities available to defeat that encounter. I am not forced to have them. I am merely encouraged to have them.​

Any idea who that poster was?

And, having made the same point many times in the past, do you honestly think that this (or any other) conversation would be well served by pedantically inserting every caveat into every post? I am already accused of making my responses too long.

So, no, I don't think these side trips are worthwhile.[/quote]
You're caught between denying the antecedent and contradicting yourself. You have already said,

If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used.

So you would be an idiot for using a per-encounter resource if you had a more powerful per-day one, but you'd also be an idiot to use a resource if it had a high associated cost? Ouch. One heck of a catch-22.

Yes. And, I would also say that modification of a resource that limits what you can do with a resource is a loss, even if only a temporary one. Loss doesn't need to be permanent to be loss.

RC

So you also agree that in a system with conditions which have a mechanical impact upon the ability of an afflicted party to interact positively with the mechanics of the game world, then an encounter does not need to be as binary as win / lose, where "losing" for the average group means "death", as you have implied in the past?

 

[shilsen]

That's the worst attempt to get the last word I've ever seen.

Actually, I think that description could be better applied to this thread as a whole.

 

[Raven Crowking]

JK, your formatting is screwed up, making it difficult to answer.

And why does that logic not apply to per-encounter resources?

It does. "If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used" is, AFAICT, a pretty universal statement.

If that logic did not apply to per-encounter resources, then the switch to per-encounter resources would solve the problem, as Wyatt suggests.

You're caught between denying the antecedent and contradicting yourself. You have already said,

If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used.

So you would be an idiot for using a per-encounter resource if you had a more powerful per-day one, but you'd also be an idiot to use a resource if it had a high associated cost? Ouch. One heck of a catch-22.

No, I would be an idiot for using a per-encounter resource if I had a more powerful per-day one, there is no cost to using it. Likewise, I would be an idiot to use a resource if it had a high associated cost and I could accomplish my goal without using it.

It is the tension between these positions that, to a large degree, makes the selection of resources to use a meaningful decision. Obviously, there are other factors, such as knowledge of what resources will actually achieve a goal (represented in game terms by, for example, the uselessness of using a fire resource against a creature immune to fire). There are also a number of ways in which a resource can be given an associated cost, as has been described upthread to some degree.

But it is nonetheless true that a cost/benefit analysis is a major key to meaningful decision making, and removing the need to analyze cost/benefit greatly reduces the meaningfulness of the associated decision.

This is not a contradiction. It is how we decide to resolve the Catch-22 that is, IMHO, the greatest source of fun in the game.

So you also agree that in a system with conditions which have a mechanical impact upon the ability of an afflicted party to interact positively with the mechanics of the game world, then an encounter does not need to be as binary as win / lose, where "losing" for the average group means "death", as you have implied in the past?

While in the current and past D&D paradigms (and I expect 4e as well), death has been by far the most commonly used "lose" condition by the average DM, I have already agreed many, many, many times that other "lose" conditions exist.

However, death is the obvious route for DMs to impose lose conditions.

If the obvious route leads to an unplayable character, that means the rules need work.

Likewise, if the obvious route leads to a 15-minute adventuring day, that means the rules need work.

RC

 

[hong]

Likewise, if the obvious route leads to a 15-minute adventuring day, that means the rules need work.

See, Pemerton? He's just a tease.

 

[Jackelope King]

JK, your formatting is screwed up, making it difficult to answer.

My appologies.

It does. "If there is no cost to using a resource, and benefit to be gained from using that resource, the odds are extremely high that the resource will be used" is, AFAICT, a pretty universal statement.

If that logic did not apply to per-encounter resources, then the switch to per-encounter resources would solve the problem, as Wyatt suggests.

...

No, I would be an idiot for using a per-encounter resource if I had a more powerful per-day one, there is no cost to using it. Likewise, I would be an idiot to use a resource if it had a high associated cost and I could accomplish my goal without using it.

It is the tension between these positions that, to a large degree, makes the selection of resources to use a meaningful decision. Obviously, there are other factors, such as knowledge of what resources will actually achieve a goal (represented in game terms by, for example, the uselessness of using a fire resource against a creature immune to fire). There are also a number of ways in which a resource can be given an associated cost, as has been described upthread to some degree.

But it is nonetheless true that a cost/benefit analysis is a major key to meaningful decision making, and removing the need to analyze cost/benefit greatly reduces the meaningfulness of the associated decision.

This is not a contradiction. It is how we decide to resolve the Catch-22 that is, IMHO, the greatest source of fun in the game.

And you still have yet to demonstrate that there is no cost to spend your more powerful per-day abilities. Indeed, from a game-mechanics point of view, if you argued that a resource which you could regain by resting for eight hours had no cost, since they can be reset so easily, then per-encounter resources must have even less of a cost, since they are reset even more easily. And if you enter an encounter unsure of the difficulty and then proceed to rely solely upon your most powerful, most limited in supply abilities, you're skipping the entire decision-making process which you also profess to the "greatest source of fun in the game".

While in the current and past D&D paradigms (and I expect 4e as well), death has been by far the most commonly used "lose" condition by the average DM, I have already agreed many, many, many times that other "lose" conditions exist.

However, death is the obvious route for DMs to impose lose conditions.

But you have argued that from a mechanical point of view, the particular per-encounter system proposed by 4e encourages an all-or-nothing win / lose (die). But if there are conditions which can negatively impact upon a character's mechanical performance in subsequent challenges, then it isn't as binary as you claim on the mechanical side. The characters can indeed be victorious but suffer attrition. And considering that we've seen a condition chart in Star Wars: Saga Edition and the developers have been talking about "aftereffects" and "thresholds", it certainly seems likely that conditions will continue to play a part (and possibly even more of a part) in the proposed 4e system.

Hence it is likely that there will indeed be a mechanical spectrum of significant mechanical outcomes for an encounter. It's very unlikely to be as binary as you claim.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, do you guys think that, once my current 2 year contract for Software Engineering is over, I should apply to WotC and help them design D&D 5th edition?