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: 3809989" data-attributes="member: 42582">I didn't feel that, so no apology is necessary to me at least! In fact, as I've said in a number of posts over the past 800 or so, I think we're really very close in how we're looking at this - (although I'm not sure you agree with that?) - but may have different personal priorities in play.Here is a recent quote from RC:As I understand it, RC is emphasising that when the margin between full resources and expended resources is only 20% (because a character with only per-encounter resources left is still at 80% effectiveness, as per WoTC design posts) there is less numerical/probabilistic margin for error in designing an encounter that is mechanically significant in his sense (ie has an impact on resource consumption). This, he contends, will produce more deadly encounters.My response to his argument was to contend - without success in convincing him - that the introduction of per-encounter resources actually increases the scope for a type of mechanical interest that is independent of resource attrition. Because, with per-encounter resources in the mix, players have more and varied resources to deploy and therefore a more sophisticated set of tactical decisions to make within an encounter, I maintain that an encounter can have mechanical interest even though, if well-played by the players, the PCs end up facing little threat of death. By argument here is partly theoretical/speculative, but also based on my own experience GMing Rolemaster for over 15 years, which has a mix of per-day (spell point), per-encounter (adreman move) and per-round (attack vs parry) resources, all of which interact in interesting ways.Your response (as I understood it) was to say that, if complex tactical decisions are required, there is a good chance (over time) of error, and therefore the deadliness increases.My response was to agree with this, but suggest that deadliness due to poor tactical play is different from the probabilistic/numerical concerns that RC had. Perhaps I'm wrong in this suggestion, but at the moment I don't think that I am.I then went on to suggest that, in resource-attrition play, poor decisions can also increase the risk of death. You responded by agreeing, I think, but pointing out that this may not happen until enconter N+X. I agreed, but noted that the great the value of X, the greater the number of encounters that are interesting only for their resource-management implications, and for certain play styles at least this is not all that interesting.And I think that's the current state of play on this issue.I asked only becase per-encounter resources are likely to make combat more complex, and thus take longer, and therefore the number of encounters per unit of playing time is likely to drop, and thus the increase in poor-play deadliness per encounter, which I agree is there, will probably be greater than the increase in deadliness per unit of playing time.Not a big point, but just one I thought was worth stating expressly.I think the notion of an encounter being "just right" applies mostly to the sort of numerical/probabilistic sort of considerations that RC has in mind - balancing the threat to the party with the resources available.The 4e designers have said they will be trying to expand the range of numerically "just right" encounters. My belief is that they will be able to do this because, with the sort of tactical complexity I have talked about becoming more important, that sort of numerical balance becomes less important.Btw, I don't think that plot-driven play is linear in the way you describe. You seem to be talking about rail-roading. I'm talking about player-driven play. But that's really a side issue - what is important is that (as far as I can tell) we seem largely to be on the same page about the relationship between resource-management rules and play style.</blockquote>

Verification