Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3757043" data-attributes="member: 30001">I agree, Wyatt's description did describe something that I found familiar, but I think this debate is really about what that is.  Some of us just think it could have been bad DMing.  And I agree that just because you make a scenario about attrition doesn't make it entertaining.  I don't think that anyone would argue that the element that they think should be in 4E should be there to the exclusion of everything else.  I don't think anyone arguing for resource management thinks it's the only thing you need in the game.The encounters that Wyatt describes are going to feel easy when they're taken out of the context of the adventure.  Sure, when I don't really care about what's going on, losing 20 hitpoints out of 100 doesn't make a difference at all.  When I know I'm facing a BBEG later on though, it takes on some significance and it's not something I'd call "too easy".  Some of the anecdotes of play I've seen from the WotC folks makes it seem like they're much more focused on short-term slugfest to test out the crunchy parts of the rules.  I wonder how much campaign level play they really engage in.  I'd hate to think that such a range (limited) of experiences is contributing to 4E design.People want long term familiarity with their PC.  High amounts of PC death hurts that.  Attrition of resources is a way of adding consequences to an encounter that isn't about life or death.  Wyatt's comments makes it seem like life and death is the only thing he cares about, so an encounter without a significant risk of death is no fun.  The problem, as occurs with killer DMs, is once you get hooked on "making the game entertaining by making it dangerous" is that the body count rises to the detriment of the game.  Or, you start fudging dice, but that deception has a limited lifespan.</blockquote>

Verification