Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3792527" data-attributes="member: 18280">Then either you need to learn to read better, or I need to learn to write better.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Examine the following:  "For whatever reason, you do not accept that mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, if in the end it does not result in such attrition."An encounter unfolds, "in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition".  This is a win/lose situation.  The players know they might win; they know they might lose.  They do not know which it is going to be.Compare this to something I said earlier:"Yes, if there is a significant chance of death/defeat during the battle, then the battle is consequential."Indeed, if you examine my analysis (and I have no desire to go back to find it; someone with Search can do that if they so desire), you will see that I suggest that there will be an increase of win/lose encounters so as to generate mechanical interest (reach the mechanical threshold of significance), which could previously be attained without requiring a win/lose scenario.I do not accept that mechanical interest can result in the long term from encounters in which the players know that resource-attrition will not occur, and which they cannot lose.  In the model thus far described for 4e, this means an increase in win/lose encounters will probably occur.  IOW, DMs will try to make battles mechanically interesting by presenting scenarios in which, in any round "the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition".I do not accept that, having played the game for a reasonable amount of time, that players will not know which encounters are likely to be win/lose, and which encounters are merely "fluff".If you are currently experiencing the 15-minute adventuring day, it is because your players are using major assets on every encounter that seems remotely threatening, and then resting to recover those assets.I do not accept that, unless some mechanism exists to prevent resting to reset per-day assets, that the same players are going to be faced with a win/lose encounter "in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition" without using their major assets, and then resting to recover those assets.IOW, it is the ability of the DM to limit "resetting" major resources that determines whether or not prudent play includes moderation or not.   Because the players control a large part of resource attrition, the DM cannot set up a situation in which the players do not know from round to round whether or not there will be resource attrition -- the players can always decide that there will be resource attrition in any game system that includes resource attrition.So, certainly, mechanical interest can result from the dynamic unfolding of an encounter, in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition, even if in the end it does not result in such attrition, so long as they are given a reason to attempt to conserve resources.Unless the players are given a reason to do so, it is never prudent when facing a win/lose encounter to not use per-day resources.You are in a dungeon.  You get into a fight that has, say, a 10% chance of leaving a party member dead each round.  You can use:*  At will power, 5% chance of ending the fight this round.*  Per encounter power, 25% chance of ending the fight this round, and brings up the chance of at will power to end fight.*  Per day power, 75% chance of ending the fight this round, and brings up the chance of at will and per encounter powers to end fight.(Obviously, I am just making these numbers up, and obviously this is somewhat exagerated in order to make a point.  But it represents the problem exactly in kind, if not in specifics.)If you know that you can rest and reset your per-day power without danger or cost, and you choose not to use it, you're certainly not making your best tactical choice.  If, however, you know that you cannot simply reset the per-day power, and that you might face more difficult encounters today, with whatever resources you have left, then you are faced with an actual decision.The 15-minute adventuring day problem was created by a combination of a sharply narrowed range of mechanically significant encounters, coupled with the idea that it was "unfun" to prevent PCs from resting to recharge.  The narrowed range of encounters makes it more desireable to use your big guns (because, if a monster can affect you, it can probably kill your); the ease of resting removes any counter argument to using your big guns (because once used they can simply be reset).The new design as described narrows the range even farther, as DMs institute more win/lose scenarios because there is no longer any such thing as an encounter that uses 1/4 resources.....or for that matter, an encounter that both unfolds, "in any round of which the players do not know whether or not it will result in resource-attrition" which is not a win/lose scenario.  And, faced with a win/lose scenario, smart players use their best resources every time, unless there is a very good reason not to.But, of course, from where your sitting, what pemerton wrote is a completely accurate description of a position that, apparently, neither you nor he bothered to read before responding to.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> Again, simply because I am unwilling to continue repeating myself forever doesn't mean that it's okay to misrepresent my position.That's not only rude; it's juvenile. You'll pardon me if I am unimpressed.RC</blockquote>

Verification