Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3776528" data-attributes="member: 42582">I was asked to provide an example of a threshold of significance to which solely per-day resources are an obstacle. You seem to be agreeing that this is such an example.I should add, however, that in the example the fun depends not upon an absence of resource attrition, but upon the threat of resource attrition. The point is that, if the only resources available are per-day, then any encounter that threatens attrition will actually lead to attrition, thus putting a cap per day on such encounters. But if per-encounter resources are also available, then there can be, in a given day, any number of such encounters, because the threat of attrition need not produce the reality thereof.Yes. Obviously, given that it is an example of a threshold of significance to which purely per-day resources are an obstacle, my example has in mind minions that cannot be tackled if the bulk of a party's resources have been deployed in the first battle.Many other posters have also given this is an example, making me think that it is one common situation in which purely per-day resources impede a particular approach to play. Suppose that the murderer is a 3rd level Fighter, and the PC a 5th level Wizard who is out of spells. Then following the murderer is almost certain death for the Wizard. I don't think it is a strength of an RPG's mechanics that it forces a player to choose between abandoning the exploration of theme, or having the vehicle through which she participates in the game (ie her PC) killed off. A system which also has per-encounter resources does not force the same choice. That is, such an alternative system would not place the same obstacles in the way of the thematic threshold of significance.Here is an alternative rendering of your sentence:"Only if you let the dynamic evolution of the whole GAME be guided by the RULES and by the METAGAME PRIORITIES of the players of that game."You seem to think that this is a bad thing, but I don't see anything wrong with it.I was asked to provide examples where purely per-day resources place a burden on various thresholds of significance (= metagame priorities). I did so. As far as I can tell, you don't really dispute that I did so. If you are now going to say that those metagame priorities are misguided, or alternatively that there is something wrong with wanting rules to support those metagame priorities (in the same sort of way that per-day resources support the metagame priority of operational play), what is your argument?To be frank, I can't imagine what that argument would look like. If I want to play a GAME that involves lots of exciting encounters, whose excitement depends upon the threat, but not necessarily the actuality, of resource depletion, why shouldn't I? If I want to play a GAME where I can explore different sorts of plots, and different sorts of themes, without having to sacrifice my PC to do so, why shouldn't I? What is the virtue in a set of rules that do not support the gaming priorities of the game's participants?</blockquote>

Verification