Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3794368" data-attributes="member: 30001">Most of what you're saying here is circular AFAICT because it assumes as a premise the very things that we're debating.  For example you say that it was an "exciting encounter" with no foundation - since we disagree on which elements would need to be present to be an exciting encounter.  Clearly if I felt that every encounter were an exciting one automatically, then I wouldn't have an issue.  IMO PCs don't have to manage resources with any great effort unless one of two things is true:  the encounter poses a significant chance of killing a PC, or, there are long time-period (per-day, for example) ramifications for using a resource.  All of the other considerations (like what you need in order to stop a bandit from retreating) are tactical or story-related, and not resource, considerations and exist under either system.As I already said, the "when" (IIRC you mean the tactical question) issue isn't any different between the two systems (and since a lack of resources at a particular moment is a possibility that exists in either system, your earlier objection IMO is unfounded).  This is not the only possibility.  You spend resources also to minimize the loss of other resources.  Saving your fireball and killing the goblins by hand might not risk you death, but you'll lose more hitpoints and it will cost you more spells in healing from that decision.Only because you say they do.  In the "per-day" paradigm, the parameters that detrmine "defeat" actually extend over the entire adventure.  Like in real life, I may very well "win the battle but lose the war", a situation that's not possible in the per-encounter situation because there is no distinction between battles and wars because there is no operational aspect to the game other than those that are story-related.So how is this not another example of the argument coming back to the idea that every encounter in a per-encounter resource situation has to be deadly in order to keep the players interested in how they are spending resources?  ?  No, wizard's don't have a *deep* bag of resources - remember the 9:00-9:15 adventuring problem?This, strictly speaking, is a matter of interpretation and not experience.  You're assessment of cause and effect is not a matter of experience by definition.  IME I've observed a correlation between things that are hard and people being cautious while doing them.Yes, it would not be fun for me to go to dinner expecting dessert and then have to wonder whether or not I'm going to have any.  On the other hand, it's not fun for me to play DnD and have no doubt that I will be victorious in all matters.  Therefore I find your analogy very hard to apply because certain success is part of what I expect from dessert but not from DnD.I find your language vague here and in many places.  A 20th level fighter is certainly *invested* in being victorious over a lone goblin.  That, in itself, does not ensure than the encounter is interesting.I don't understand the significance of this idea.  There's no logical reason why fireball is 3rd level and cone of cold is 5th level other than their spell effects were arbitrarily chosen to be a match for those levels.  The foundation of the DnD system assumes a per-day resource expenditure.  There's no logical reason for any rule in DnD other than those based on real life issues, and since we're talking about magic that's not a possibility.  Since *any* magic system you propose will have limitations, even a per-encounter one, your system will have as many arbitrary limitations as any other.Yea, just a like a problem arises if you are hit by three criticals in a row.  A couple of ogres attacking the PCs is also a "problem".  AFAICT You're conflating the use of the word "problem" to indicate that a problem/challenge facing the players automatically means that there is a problem with the game system.  There is a spectrum of possiblities here that you're ignoring.  Instead you seem to be arguing that either the PCs are at 100% resources, or they'll be wiped out.  There's actually a whole range of other possiblities in the per-day system.You actually can just create the encounter and let them figure it out.  Designing dungeons from a global perspective is the way to deal with this.  Think of a dungeon as a single large encounter and the available resources as "per-encounter" because it would be the same consideration in your system.  The thing that makes the situation harder is when you're trying to micromanage each encounter and situation, it's true that the DM cannot predict the circumstances of every encounter in the adventure, but in my DMing style I don't want to - and my players expect to have to think about what they're doing rather than just slogging forward until they die or kill everything.The PCs do get to choose thisYou seem to repeatedly equate failure with "unfun" - which contradicts alot of what you say earlier is the motivation for being interested in a per-encounter situation.  Yes, the fact that defeat has game-world significance is what makes it worth trying to being with.  To be "unsatisfied" by defeat is to basically say that the game should always be about winning.</blockquote>

Verification