Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3759744" data-attributes="member: 18280">OK, then.  Here's the problem as I see/understand it:(1)  Each battle either does or does not use up per-day resources.  I will consider PC death as a per-day resource.(1a)  If a battle does not use up per-day resources, nothing is lost in engaging in that battle.  This means:(1ai)  The PCs can engage in an effectively endless number of these battles.(1aii)  The only significant impact of these battles can be the opportunity to give the PCs stuff.(1b)  If a battle doe use up per-day resources, the PCs will be at less than full capacity.  This means:(1bi)  These battles are automatically much more important than the other battles.(1bii)  The PCs can only engage in a limited number of these battles per day.(1biii)  This impact of these battles is to make the PCs less able to deal with future events.To my mind, these things together lead to several conclusions:1.  In the event of a battle that has no chance to require expending per-day resources, there is no reason to have the battle.  It becomes the "4 goblins agains a 10th level fighter" scenario.  We have been told for a very long time, "if it doesn't impact the game, it's better to handwave it."1a.  The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-encounter resources don't impact the game, and hence are not significant.1b.  The implication is that, in the metagame sense, per-day resources impact the game, and hence are significant.1c.  We are told that the problem that this design is meant to counter is resting as soon as significant (in the metagame sense) resources are depleted.1ci.  Having greater insignificant (in the metagame sense) resources means that you can adventure longer, but also that said adventuring is not meaningful (again, in the metagame sense).1cii.  If it is true that PCs will rest as soon as significant resources are depleted, then within the new framework, PCs will rest as soon as per-day resources are depleted.1ciii.  Point 1cii is even more true if some (or all) per-encounter resources are tied into having per-day resources untapped.2.  In order to make a battle significant, all (or the vast majority of) non-handwaved battles should have a reasonable chance of expending per-day resources.2a.  This means that resting may occur after the first encounter, which is exactly the problem the system is intended to eliminate.2b.  Assuming fewer per-day resources than 3e, this also means that there is a smaller range of encounters that can both impact those resources and be survivable, hence narrowing the opportunity for significant action within the system.From what I have seen posted so far, it appears that the 4e designers expect that:(1)  Most encounters will not use up any significant (in the metagame sense) resources.(2)  Players will be excited about these encounters; i.e., they will find them "fun".(3)  This will result in a longer, and more fulfilling adventuring "day".I believe that the designers are correct in terms of initial play (first 3-6 months), but the more players become aware of the meaninglessness (in a metagame sense) of the majority of encounters, the less excited they will be by those encounters, the less fun they will have, and the more they will want to get on to the "real" encounters that have a chance to significantly (in a metagame sense) impact the game.Which puts us right back to where we began.Crowking's Maxim 1:  A stronger element of resource attrition leads both to a greater range of choice, and a greater range of significance to encounters, than a weaker element of resource attrition.Crowking's Maxim 2:  No element of resource attrition is meaningful unless there exists some cost/benefit analysis related to the choice between renewing the resource or attempting to continue without renewing the resource.(A)  If a 10-minute rest is required to reset abilities (instead of per-encounter), and wandering monsters are encouraged, so-called "per encounter" resources gain a level of cost/benefit analysis that makes them more interesting.(B)  If wandering monsters are encouraged, and the means to avoid wandering monsters becomes more difficult to use effectively (Rope Trick, Teleportation in 3e), then "per day" abilities gain a higher level of cost/benefit analysis.I would hazard to say that, regardless of what 4e determines to be what type of resource, applying (A) and (B) would resolve the 9-9:15 (or 9-9:30) problem completely.  In fact, nerfing the "hiding" spells while encouraging wandering monsters would have done the trick in 3.X without requiring any further revision to address that problem.IMHO, of course.YMMV.YDMB.RC</blockquote>

Verification