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: 3806563" data-attributes="member: 30001">That's like saying that swinging a sword in a battle is meaningless.  You're reasoning here is circular, because there's no reason that successfully camping is meaningless in a game where success at it is critical to the mission, which presumably has huge amounts of meaning.  The issue of whether or not one or the other is more interesting is a matter of taste/opinion and is seperate.  The basic fact that you seem to be missing is that any activity that's required for success in a mission with meaning, is by definition, meaningful.Based on anecdotal evidence and a little reasoning, I would expect 90% of people advocating for an "all per-encounter" resources game never kill PCs in their games.  For the same reasons that they don't like resource issues.  I don't understand why they would make a distinction.  In any case, I agree that PC death isn't really different basically between the two systems, though as I've said the probabilities are different.  And as the above paragraph alludes to, I'm concerned that all-encounter-resources folks aren't really playing the game the way I do in other ways, like PC death, so they are possibily selling me an idea that's not really taking into account these other issues.This is similar to the PC death issue above - I don't see any distinction between per-encounter and per-day resource games in terms of the kinds of "non-mechanical thresholds" issues that can arise.  (BTW - by "per-encounter" I mean "all per-encounter" and by per-day, I certainly allow for some per-encounter abilities)</blockquote>

Verification