Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3778003" data-attributes="member: 42582">That is one way to do it. Some players (and GMs) might prefer an approach to play where the further encounter (be it the mop up, or whatever else) can happen before the looting (and identifying of said loot), or even where there is no looting.Your point seems to be that "Given D&D as it is, this is poor encounter design." Sure, but another way of putting that point is "Given D&D as it is, this sequence of encounters can't really be run effectively." And another way of putting this is that "D&D as it is, with purely per-day resources, poses an obstacle to running certain sequences of enounters with certain (non-mechanical) thresholds of signficance." Which is what I set out to show. So I don't really see why you think I haven't shown it.That's probably why I remarked at post <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3775087&postcount=999" target="_blank">#999</a> that "All of these examples might illustrate a more general point (I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think it's there): per-day is an obstacle to the dynamic evolution of the sequence of encounters over the course of play, if that dynamic evolution is to be guided by non-resource-management considerations."And other posters have experienced the need to take acount of resource attrition in the design of their encounters, when what they are really interested in is not operational play but purely encounter-leve tactical excitement, or plot development, or thematic play, or even just plain-old buttkicking. They therefore have found this need to be a burden.Nothing is going to be proved by assertions about what sort of play experience one prefers, or even by demonstrations that a certain set of mechanics can, in the right hands and wielded in the right manner, generate a certain sort of play experience. The question is whether D&D's attrition mechanics can, for some players in some situations, get in the way of other metagame goals. Given that we both agree that they put constraints on encounter design that have no connection to those non-operational metagame goals we seem to be in agreement on this fundamental point.The question for the 4e designers is, "Is it worth ditching operational play as a major part of the play experience, so as to increase the scope for a wide variety of play involving other metagame priorities?" From the information that is coming out I believe that they have already answered the question in the affirmative. Will this change in direction (which merely continues a trend established in 3E) irreparably harm D&D as a game? I don't believe so. You seem to believe that it will. I'm not sure how that sort of disagreement can be resolved.As to the problem of the 15-minute adventuring day, I still remain satisfied that I have provided examples which show that your prediction that it will recur with a mix of per-day and per-encounter resources is doubtful, because that prediction rests on a false premise, namely, that an encounter can be of mechanical interest only if it actually consumes per-day resources.</blockquote>

Verification