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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3799539" data-attributes="member: 30001">My first point:  it's somewhat misleading (not intentionally) to remove, from the example, the dice rolling, other PCs, and so on, basically simplifying the encounter and then say that the expected result was uninteresting.  I would agree - having monsters do an average amount of damage is uninteresting.  Giving a wizard a choice of just two different combat spells to cast is uninteresting.  And reducing the options you have in terms of resource expenditure, by taking the other PCs out of the equation, also makes it uninteresting.  I may have missed the point of your example, but the example's simplifications AFAICT seemed to create a situation that doesn't really exist in a typical DnD game.  It also removes most all of the interesting aspects from an operational standpoint.Secondly, the resource attrition game is not "bypassed" by resting.  Resting is one of the options in a resource attrition game.  That's like saying that killing a monster "bypasses" the DnD monster encounter.  Resting is one of the ways that you deal with low resources.  Now people have complained about resting for two reasons IIRC - one is that they think it hurts the "story", the second is that they think it's a 100% certain situation and thus a formality and tedious, or unreasonably frustrating and deadly if it's not a 100% certain situation.  I've tried to address each of these objections in detail in previous posts.Shilsen why trying to get me to understand how encounter-contexts can make an encounter interesting in spite of the fact that it poses no risk of death.  Although you both may not be of the same mind, don't you think his reasoning would apply here?  (I actually disagree with him on some key points, but I don't think those affect this particular situation.)  Your statement here does what Wyatt's did originally AFAICT - it seems to discount the fact that there are often consequences for resting, and thus the events that lead up to you being forced to rest (the three "uninteresting" battles) are actually very interesting to players that aren't naive/uninterested about resource issues in the game.  Granted, if resource issues aren't a party of the playing style then this is probably the case.  But if they are, then weathering the first three encounters with enough resources intact that you can continue with the adventure is an important part of the challenge of those three encounters.Failing to do so is a kind of non-deadly failure that I like to have in the game.  It also vaguely mimmics reality where resource depletion is often a reason for failure.  The alternative, with an "all-per-encounter" resource design is that the PCs just keep fighting until everything else is dead or they're dead.  An earlier discussion got to the point where folks suggested restoring some sort of "fatigue rules" to the system, but this results in either a hefty dose of DM fiat, or a system that just restores the original set of problems.  If a simple set of fatigue rules were otherwise compatible with an "all-per-encounter resources" design, then both parties could be happy though. That's a shame.  I'm starting to get a little tired of how long combat takes in DnD - even the life-and-death ones - 4 hours of dice rolling for a two minute stretch of time where things are exciting.  I had seen blurbs where the designers seemed to be trying to shorten this.Agreed.  IME my players develop a pretty good sense of the impact that resource usage is having on their success during the overall adventure because there are often consequences to resting.  Without these sorts of experiences that allows players to put things in this context, I can start to see how the battles are just tedious.</blockquote>

Verification