Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 3774114" data-attributes="member: 3887">It would. That's not my big issue with the attrition model, though. What I don't like is the overly predictable encounter structurel it pretty much forces on adventure design, and the fact that it works best in a static environment where the players basically control how much danger they face.Oh, it might not. But after all these pages of thread, I still haven't seen why? I keep falling back on thinking &quot;'Gee, our M&amp;M campaign is going swimmingly, even though Joseirus (the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling) can drop pyramids on Nazi's all day long.&quot; Mine models a somewhat more postmodern take on classic adventure fiction. Not that it's particularly relevant. Those are good examples. But you can certainly find more novels where you can infer a very loose resource management model for magic. See, I just don't see how this relates to the resource depletion/challenge model in D&amp;D. In D&amp;D, the only resource worth tracking is magic, and neither play a role in Conan or John Carter's ability to kick ass. If anything, characters in traditional pulp action stories more closely map to a per-encounter model. They can tire themselves in a fight but recover superhumanly quickly. Plus, they have 'special moves' that only become available after they've been severely beaten/look down for the count...for my money, that's how you do Conan (doesn't Iron Heroes already use a mechanic like that?). Not through the standard attrition model. Sure. But some players find that the rules force them into making choices that hurt the sense of verisimilitude they're after. Choices they wouldn't have to make under a different challenge paradigm. Put another way, it's nice when the mechanics reward you for playing the game in a manner you enjoy. Of course, this also works as a fool-proof argument for keeping a strict resource management...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mallus, post: 3774114, member: 3887"] It would. That's not my big issue with the attrition model, though. What I don't like is the overly predictable encounter structurel it pretty much forces on adventure design, and the fact that it works best in a static environment where the players basically control how much danger they face. Oh, it might not. But after all these pages of thread, I still haven't seen [i]why[/i]? I keep falling back on thinking "'Gee, our M&M campaign is going swimmingly, even though Joseirus (the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling) can drop pyramids on Nazi's all day long." Mine models a somewhat more postmodern take on classic adventure fiction. Not that it's particularly relevant. Those are good examples. But you can certainly find more novels where you can infer a very loose resource management model for magic. See, I just don't see how this relates to the resource depletion/challenge model in D&D. In D&D, the only resource worth tracking is magic, and neither play a role in Conan or John Carter's ability to kick ass. If anything, characters in traditional pulp action stories more closely map to a per-encounter model. They can tire themselves in a fight but recover superhumanly quickly. Plus, they have 'special moves' that only become available after they've been severely beaten/look down for the count...for my money, that's how you do Conan (doesn't Iron Heroes already use a mechanic like that?). Not through the standard attrition model. Sure. But some players find that the rules force them into making choices that hurt the sense of verisimilitude they're after. Choices they wouldn't have to make under a different challenge paradigm. Put another way, it's nice when the mechanics reward you for playing the game in a manner you enjoy. Of course, this also works as a fool-proof argument for [i]keeping[/i] a strict resource management... [/QUOTE]

Verification