Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3780374" data-attributes="member: 42582">Correct. That is, purely per-day resources place a constraint upon the pacing and sequencing of encounters, which for certain desired playstyles (which want a pacing and/or sequencing of encounters that violates those constraints) creates an obstacle.I don't dispute that a group who for whatever reason want to play D&D can work around the obstacles it poses to their desired playstyle, for example by compromising that playstyle. It doesn't therefore follow that they will not be better served by a set of mechanics that don't impose that obstacle in the first place.For example, in 3E, any plot-line which has the following two features, (i) that every encounter is mechanically interesting (in the sense that it threatens, or actually results in, resource depletion) and (ii) that 7 encounters occur in the same game day, is quite difficult to pull off. That is because it is hard to achieve goal (i) without actually depleting resources, because in core 3.5 all resources that require a choice to use them are per-day. And this depletion of resources then makes it hard to achieve goal (ii), because after the first 4 or so encounters the party (and particularly the party spellcasters) will have no resources left to use.A mix of per-day and per-encounter resources has the potential to allow such a plot-line to be played in a satisfactory manner.If your conention is that only a bad GM or silly players would attempt such a plot-line using the current D&D rules, that may be so, in that they are trying to use the rules for a purpose that the rules don't really support. But there is nothing absurd, or contrived, about wanting to enjoy such a plot-line in a fantasy RPG. It is therefore not obviously irrational for the designers of 4e to try to come up with a set of mechanics that can support such a plot-line.I get the sense that this is your real concern, namely, that changing the D&D rules to support the sorts of encounter sequencings and pacings I and others have put forward in their posts would be a change for the worse, in that (i) it would lead to the game no longer really being D&D, and (ii) it would undermine the market appeal of the game.I broadly agree with the first of these points. In fact, having grown up on Moldvay Basic and AD&D 1st ed, I find that 3E is not really D&D. But I don't see that WoTC have any good reason to stick with a game that is really D&D, if it will not sell.That therefore takes us to the question of market share. As a comic store owner, and therefore someone in touch with the commercial side of the hobby industry in a way that I am not, you are better placed than me to make those judgements. On the other hand, I would note that 3E departed from the roots of D&D, and this did not seem to hurt its sales. I would be surprised if WoTC is now taking D&D in a direction that is not supported by market research. And, for what it's worth, my own sense of the zeitgeist is that operational play, of the classic D&D kind, is really not that appealing to the majority of the contemporary gaming market.</blockquote>

Verification