Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3795342" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not sure to what extent your questions are rhetorical. But if, in fact, it takes 10000 encounters before the game becomes a mechanical chore rather than an exciting (for a game player) suite of choices, then that is about 40 years of play (assuming 5 encounters per week at 50 playing weeks per year). A game which can maintain interest for that long, at that intensity of play, would be a major design achievement, I would think.OK, well I have suggested exactly this, namely, that players won't know. And I have suggested that this is so for two reasons:(1) They may be ignorant of the encounter parameters (at least at the start of the encounter) - this has been suggested by the several comments from designers about the variability of monster roles, meaning that inferences to role cannot be drawn just from creature type. (2) In my view the more important reason, that in a system of per-encounter abilities the player's choices, over the course of the encounter, determine whether or not it is "mere filler." So, until those choices become purely automatic, it will be interesting for the players to have to make decisions to bring it about that the encounter poses little threat.I agree, except that I dispute the adverb "automatically". If the assessment of significance is difficult - because the options are broad, the mathematics subtle, the context uncertain (both mechanically and perhaps in other respects) and the interactions between the choices of multiple party members important - then making the optimal choice can itself be an interesting and satisfying experience. I see this every time I GM my games. It's possible that my players are unique, but I've got no reason to think there are not others like them.I don't accept this as true in general. For example, my bank account is neither easily nor frequently renewed. But I don't micromanage it, and have little interest in doing so. My pay goes in, my mortgage and other bills come out - and that's about it.On the other hand, when I cook I can easily renew my resources, and I can always start again - and indeed I do, every evening or two. But I still micromanage my cooking in a way that I do not my finances. One reason is that I enjoy cooking more than banking. But another is that I can make meaningful choices about cooking, whereas I can't with my finances - all my money is already allocated for me by the overheads of life.Now, these examples are not drawn from gaming. So how relevant are they? Dunno. But they show the general claim is not true. And I have no real reason to suppose the claim is true in respect of RPGs - for example, during an encounter most of my RM players micromanage their Adrenal Move choices (per-encounter) at least as closely as their spell point choices (per-day), because they know that the former is at least as important as the latter to their success in an encounter, and they care about the encounter they are in.An additional complicating factor here is that while per-encounter abilities renew more frequently and with greater ease than do per-day abilities in game, it is an open question whether or not they do so in real life, which is where the players are experiencing their interest and their pleasure. If succeeding at encounters becomes a tactically more engaging process with the new mechanics, it may well be that the abilities reset with more frequency but less ease, because winning encounters is a greater mental challenge (but not, necessarily, because of a greater in-game threat to the PCs).In 1st ed AD&D haste ages the caster 3 years - generally insiginficant, at least within the context of an encounter - but as far as I recall does not trigger a system shock roll. I'm pretty sure the latter is a 2nd ed innovation. (A quick scan of OSRIC suggests that the aging is 2 years, but there is still no mention of system shock.)The sorts of repercussions that Jackelope King has in mind are, I think, opportunity costs. These are real repercussions which take effect immediately.I don't think this is disputed. What is disputed is the following: (i) that context can give players an incentive to play encounters well, where "playing well" means "deploying one's per-encounter resources so as to win without depleting one's per-day resources"; (ii) that purely per-day resources are an obstacle to generating compelling contexts for encounters.Under the current rules, in the fight vs goblins the fighter has nothing interesting to do except move into the middle of the goblins, and then full attack and cleave; while the magic-user has nothing interesting to do except either waste spells, or declare each turn "I do nothing". Thus it is uninteresting.With the introduction of per-encounter resources it becomes marginally more interesting, because the magic-user at least has something to do. However, if the goblins really pose no threat then it is still relatively uninteresting.Supppose, however, that the goblins have a chance of winning the encounter if the players are tactically sloppy - for example, they might be able to swarm the fighter and overbear her. In core 3E this is still relatively uninteresting, because the tactical choices are rather limited - for example, the fighter's only trade-off is between moving (which on its own is not that spectacular) and full attack, while the wizard's only trade-off is between expending resources and doing nothing. The goal of a properly-designed suite of per-encounter abilities is to make these trade-offs and optimisations interesting and pleasurable as a play experience. Each encounter is like a mini-adventure, in which decisions are taken so as to maximise the likelihood of success, and minimise the emergence of a real chance of failure.Thus, as I have frequently said, the outcome all depends on the good design of the suite of character abilities. Luckily, WoTC seems to have employed some good designers.I have already noted that if per-day abilities are designed so that they are simply the optimal choices for winning a typical encounter, then your prediction of a failure to solve the 15-minute day problem becomes highly plausible.For me, this is a reason to suppose that per-day abilities will be things like "second wind" and "teleport".I posted a long list of reasons for disagreeing with this, based on a different diagnosis from yours of the causes of the 15-minute day. You have not responded, but I'll post them again in case others are interested:</blockquote>

Verification