Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3785020" data-attributes="member: 18280">This is only true if the resources used are &quot;wasted&quot;.&nbsp; If there is no cost/risk associated with using the firehose (which is not the case in real life), then the firehose is faster.&nbsp; If there is no cost/risk involved in bringing your enemy to -1,000,000,000 HP, and there is a cost/risk associated with bringing an enemy to -1 HP (If you don't hit hard enough, you risk suffering HP damage in return from your enemy. You want to drop the enemy in the fewest number of rounds to avoid being dropped yourself), then prudence suggests overkill rather than underkill every time.BTW, I have said, repeatedly, that ensuring that there is a cost/risk associated with using important abilities is one obvious method of dealing with the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem. In 1e, there were the following obvious costs/risks associated with using resources:(1) Some resources were intrinsically hazardous to use. This includes spells that age you, System Shock, and the way potions mixed if you attempted to use two at once.(2) Wandering monsters were intended to create a time constraint. If you sat around camping, or spent too much time searching an area, you ran a risk of encountering something else that might sap (or overwhelm!) your resources.(3) Limitations to what one can do within a round. You can attack or cast a healing spell, for example.Well, we know that 3.X gutted (1) from the game, with very few exceptions. Those sort of cost/risk assessments were apparently &quot;unfun&quot;. We know that the WotC site has run an adventure design article, widely discussed on this forum at one time, about cutting (2) from games because, again, they are &quot;unfun&quot;. We also know that 4e is designed to ensure that you can attack while, say, healing your companions because the types of decisions required by (3) are &quot;unfun&quot;.It is the costs/risks associated with any given choice that make moderation a worthwhile option.&nbsp; Most players are smart enough to know that when making tactical decisions, even if, like the designers, they are not cognizant of why the game is becoming less fun, and fall under the mistaken belief that going further down the road of &quot;no/reduced costs/risks&quot; will somehow alleviate the problems that walking down that road has caused.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3785020, member: 18280"] This is only true if the resources used are "wasted". If there is no cost/risk associated with using the firehose (which is not the case in real life), then the firehose is faster. If there is no cost/risk involved in bringing your enemy to -1,000,000,000 HP, and there is a cost/risk associated with bringing an enemy to -1 HP ([i]If you don't hit hard enough, you risk suffering HP damage in return from your enemy. You want to drop the enemy in the fewest number of rounds to avoid being dropped yourself[/i]), then prudence suggests overkill rather than underkill every time. BTW, I have said, repeatedly, that ensuring that there is a cost/risk associated with using important abilities is one obvious method of dealing with the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem. In 1e, there were the following obvious costs/risks associated with using resources: (1) Some resources were intrinsically hazardous to use. This includes spells that age you, System Shock, and the way potions mixed if you attempted to use two at once. (2) Wandering monsters were intended to create a time constraint. If you sat around camping, or spent too much time searching an area, you ran a risk of encountering something else that might sap (or overwhelm!) your resources. (3) Limitations to what one can do within a round. You can attack or cast a healing spell, for example. Well, we know that 3.X gutted (1) from the game, with very few exceptions. Those sort of cost/risk assessments were apparently "unfun". We know that the WotC site has run an adventure design article, widely discussed on this forum at one time, about cutting (2) from games because, again, they are "unfun". We also know that 4e is designed to ensure that you can attack while, say, healing your companions because the types of decisions required by (3) are "unfun". It is the costs/risks associated with any given choice that make moderation a worthwhile option. Most players are smart enough to know that when making tactical decisions, even if, like the designers, they are not cognizant of why the game is becoming less fun, and fall under the mistaken belief that going further down the road of "no/reduced costs/risks" will somehow alleviate the problems that walking down that road has caused. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification