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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3806745" data-attributes="member: 42582">Just to clarify - does "not as deadly" mean "not as deadly per unit of playing time"? That makes sense to me, in that if encounters N, N+1 etc are not that deadly, but N+x is, then there have been a number of non-deadly encounters - but mistakes in those earlier encounters can result in encounter N+x being deadly when otherwise it would not have been (had resources been properly managed). As I think I already noted, in a per-encounter model there is a compression of this sequence - the unfolding of mistakes happens within the encounter. If this is what you mean by per-encounter being deadlier, than I agree.I think your notion of deadliness - if I have got it right - is different from Raven Crowking's. As far as I can tell, he is asserting that per-encounter will require encounters to involve creatures with bigger numbers relative to the PCs (so as to make the choice to deploy per-day resources relevant - so already he is talking slightly orthogonally to you, because he is not considering pure per-encounter) which make more encounters deadly on the probabilities - whereas I hope I'm right in thinking that we are focussing on deadliness resulting from poor play decisions.I think one can't make this call until one knows how hard it is to heal within the context of an encounter - afterall, many D&D encounters require healing during them if the party is to succeed - and how the choice to do so interacts with other mechanical options.HeroQuest is a system based on per-encounter resoures, which nevertheless allows for character death. But as players can spend Hero Points for "bumps" during contests, the likelihood of a PC dying when a player does not want them to is reduced from a game where the logic of the dice cannot be controverted. I suspect that 4e's Action Points might play a similar role.As I've noted in earlier posts, it is important for Action Points to work that they not simply become another resource to be managed. Games like HeroQuest attempt to solve this issue by putting acquisition of Hero Points in the hands of the players - they are earned by succeeding at group or individual goals, and this success is in turn in the hands of the player (in part because they can spend points to succeed). But of course this will break down if the main interest of the players is not in the goals per se (and the plot and theme these give rise to) but the meta-goal of succeeding at goals, to earn points, to succeed at goals, etc - so these are not a mechanic for all playstyles.What I was trying to get at is that, for many players, they do not derive pleasure from playing out all the details of the logistics that the party must engage in. To link this to your sword-swinging example - the game does not require the player of a sword-swinger to theorise the physics and biophysics of swordplay, nor to engage in any swordplay. Likewise, many players do not want to engage with the detail of planning and implementing the logistics of a mission - they want it to happen off-screen (presumably by way of survival skill rolls).That's why I said "meaningless from the point of view of plot or theme", not "meaningless per se". Compare the plot of the a Tom Clancy novel to the plot of a John Woo movie. Both can involve violent gunplay. Only one involves logistical detail as part of the plot. Players who want the John Woo-style plot may not want to have a ruleset that puts playing out the logistics at the front-and-centre, as did 1st ed AD&D.There is no doubt that this is an issue of taste/YMMV. I was trying to explain why for some (many?) RPGers pure per-day resources introduce an unattractive element into play - it is meaningless relative to their interest in the game. I've explained my reasons for disagreeing with this, so won't reiterate them. They're implicit in my previous paragraph. By introducing operational considerations to the centre of play, pure per-day can get in the way of other thresholds of significance. The main workaround is to have only one encounter per day - but that is itself an obstacle to the implimentation of certain thresholds of signficance, because it necessarily constrains plot and theme in certain respects.There is a lot of evidence that WoTC do extensive market research. Ryan Dancey talked about it back when 3E came out, and a recent thread on the 4e forum discussed more recent market research endeavours (I don't have the URL to hand). I assume they would withhold this data because it is commercially valuable.How any such data would be relevant to resource design is, from my point of view, pure speculation. But assuming WoTC has such data, I doubt that they would choose design goals that are not supported by it.</blockquote>

Verification