Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jackelope King" data-source="post: 3764040" data-attributes="member: 31454">I'm curious as to how you justify this viewpoint that battles must consume resources in light of what I discussed back in post <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3763052&amp;postcount=588" target="_blank">588</a>, RC. Battles have other significance than just, &quot;Oh my, I hope my fighter lives through this one!&quot;There are battles in which this is the case. Those are indeed very fun. In a tough fight where the players really need to pull together to just survive, you can get some very tense, very exciting moments.But all battles needn't be this way. Can't a fight be interesting just because the PCs got a chance to show off, or because they got to fight on a very cool battlefield (like a storm-tossed ship or in a tavern where tables can be upended and ropes can be swung from)? Or because the PCs gained some important in-game resource, like advancing to the next level of the dungeon? Certainly the tactical resource management you describe can be very fun, but do you truly believe that this is the only factor to be considered when you try to decide what sort of pacing is right for the game, or how best to challenge your players in an encoutner?And as I said, the focus of resource management is moving from the macro per-day level more towards the micro per-encounter level, where you have to make the choice of not when to do something today, but what is your best option this round. That's the fundamental resource that the game looks like it will focus on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jackelope King, post: 3764040, member: 31454"] I'm curious as to how you justify this viewpoint that battles must consume resources in light of what I discussed back in post [url=http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3763052&postcount=588]588[/url], RC. Battles have other significance than just, "Oh my, I hope my fighter lives through this one!" There are battles in which this is the case. Those are indeed very fun. In a tough fight where the players really need to pull together to just survive, you can get some very tense, very exciting moments. But all battles needn't be this way. Can't a fight be interesting just because the PCs got a chance to show off, or because they got to fight on a very cool battlefield (like a storm-tossed ship or in a tavern where tables can be upended and ropes can be swung from)? Or because the PCs gained some important in-game resource, like advancing to the next level of the dungeon? Certainly the tactical resource management you describe can be very fun, but do you truly believe that this is the only factor to be considered when you try to decide what sort of pacing is right for the game, or how best to challenge your players in an encoutner? And as I said, the focus of resource management is moving from the macro per-day level more towards the micro per-encounter level, where you have to make the choice of not when to do something today, but what is your best option this [i]round[/i]. That's the fundamental resource that the game looks like it will focus on. [/QUOTE]

Verification