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: 3764167" data-attributes="member: 30001">Regarding your earlier post, which I did read then:This doesn't quite capture the priority issues that I'm trying to identify.  Resource management serves as an effective way IMO for the game to include a dimension of failure other than PC death or failure that's plot-dependent.  It's also a fairly realistic type of failure.Some people play DnD knowing that there is no real chance of their PCs dying, and still have fun.  So saying that's something is fun is in the context of what type of game you prefer.  Imaro, for example, has played games without the emphasis on daily resource management and AFAICT has a different opinion on it."Who do I kill first" IMO is not a resource issue per se.  I disagree with something that statements like this seem to imply, and that is that the only difference between per-encounter and per-day is the time frame.  The differences IMO are actually more substantial and your statement above actually hints at this - because now instead of deciding *whether* to use a spell, your simply deciding who to use it against.  Also important to note:  the encounter time frame is something the PCs have a large role in determining, to end the encounter they simply run away.  But you can't end the day by running away.I don't see this at all.  You are very much capable of running the "one encounter per day" type adventure as you were before.  Adding per-encounter resources in order to keep wizards from dominating these kinds of scenarios IMO is fine with me, it's some of the other goals that I'm not too keen on.For me, I balance adventures based on the sum total of the encounters, and the ability of the "dungeon" to react to the PCs, so yes, that's how it happens.  If the over all number of probably combats during the adventure is too easy, then this needs to be adjusted.  This isn't fundementally different from what you would do with encounter-based adventures, only that I do it per adventure rather than per encounter.  However, there are intimations here that the DM is actually linearly determining which encounters the PCs will face at each step, and I don't do this.I disagree with this too.  The system isn't built around the 4-encounter/day.  The CR system predicts 4/day.  You can just as easily increase the EL of an encounter and it becomes a 2-encounter per day.   Or decrease it and get more.  There's nothing fundemental about 4/day unless you match CRs with party level, but there is absolutely no mandate to do that.Whereas in the per-encounter paradigm, what do you do if the BBEG isn't high enough level for the party?  Add mooks?  Whatelse can you do?  I don't see why the per-encounter paradigm changes anything about this - an easy situation, whether it's per encounter or per day is still an easy situation.It's a game, so everything is artificial and rules-based at some level.  The idea that you get beat in the head with an axe and your cleric heals you and a minute later gets all his spells back is as least as artificial (and IMO moreso) than anything else.I don't engineer pacing in my games because I don't engineer outcomes or the stories.  Pacing in my game is driven by the player's choices and what makes sense for the situation, not how cool I would think it would be if the BBEG tells the PC that he's his father just before he falls off the cliff.  That sort of heavy-handed manipulation IMO is fine for a novel but not what my players expect from a game.  However - this is entirely a play-style issue.  The irony here is that I'm skeptical that per-encounter resources support story-based gaming better than per-day.  IMO per-encounter resources introduce as much plot-busting stuff as per-day.Fatigue rules are a wonderful thing?  So you use them?  I doubt it based on what you've said above.  I am always wary of unsubstantiated advice.</blockquote>

Verification