Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3780927" data-attributes="member: 18280">I have used the model successfully for decades both when the players have chosen their encounters and they have had encounters thrust at them.&nbsp; The only limit in a resource attrition model is that, if the DM goes over the PC's resources, then the PCs will suffer accordingly.&nbsp; Interestingly enough, the only limit in a per-encuonter model is that, if the DM goes over the PC's resources, then the PCs will suffer accordingly.It is true that the per-encounter model allows for a higher usage of resources (because the PCs have more resources), but it also has a much more limited mechanical theshold of significance.&nbsp; You can do more, but mostly you can do more of the same thing.Overall, I think that the game works best when the players have a greater level of control over their actions (i.e., when their choices are more rather than less meaningful).You obviously deny that it is true.None of your arguments, AFAICT, demonstrate that my argument is incorrect.&nbsp; Because I didn't respond to your post #1001 doesn't mean that there was anything in that post that required response.&nbsp; For example, you say in that postFor example: it does not follow, from the fact that the players are not confident in any given round that they will win using per-encounter resources, that they will switch to per-day resources. This depends entirely on what the per-day resources are.but there is nothing in my analysis/argument that requires that they use their per-day resources in any given round.&nbsp; Moreover, if you go waaaayyyyy back to my first post in this thread, I already said that this depends entirely on what the per-day resources are.&nbsp; OTOH, we are told that the wizard, having uesd all per-day resources, will be at 80%.&nbsp; So, again, there isn't a whole lot to answer here.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3780927, member: 18280"] I have used the model successfully for decades both when the players have chosen their encounters and they have had encounters thrust at them. The only limit in a resource attrition model is that, if the DM goes over the PC's resources, then the PCs will suffer accordingly. Interestingly enough, the only limit in a per-encuonter model is that, if the DM goes over the PC's resources, then the PCs will suffer accordingly. It is true that the per-encounter model allows for a higher usage of resources (because the PCs have more resources), but it also has a much more limited mechanical theshold of significance. You can do more, but mostly you can do more of the same thing. Overall, I think that the [i]game[/i] works best when the players have a greater level of control over their actions (i.e., when their choices are more rather than less meaningful). You obviously deny that it is true. None of your arguments, AFAICT, demonstrate that my argument is incorrect. Because I didn't respond to your post #1001 doesn't mean that there was anything in that post that required response. For example, you say in that post [indent]For example: it does not follow, from the fact that the players are not confident in any given round that they will win using per-encounter resources, that they will switch to per-day resources. This depends entirely on what the per-day resources are.[/indent] but there is nothing in my analysis/argument that requires that they use their per-day resources in any given round. Moreover, if you go waaaayyyyy back to my first post in this thread, I already said that this depends entirely on what the per-day resources are. OTOH, we are told that the wizard, having uesd all per-day resources, will be at 80%. So, again, there isn't a whole lot to answer here. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification