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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shilsen" data-source="post: 3814791" data-attributes="member: 198">Okay. I could be wrong, but I don't think I've really been mentioning of "mechanical interest" much, however, so there may be a lot of things other people mean which I'm not covering. I've actually been placing more emphasis on the issue of "potential PC death" being unnecessary to make an encounter interesting or challenging.I'd say almost everything in the game is play-style mediated. The interesting thing with the encounter I mentioned is that it gave players a chance to try things they normally didn't. So the people who normally never try tripping, sundering, disarming, etc. were the ones trying it, the mage took a break from spellcasting to kick the crap out of an enemy in melee, and so on.Why does the question even matter? It seems fairly certain that 4e is not going to use an "all per encounter" resource system (emphasis on "all"). So unless you've got some game system in mind which has that kind of resource system and which you're considering playing, why do you care?I doubt I could, but why would I (or anyone) ever want to? I seriously doubt there are many, or even any, DMs out there whose PCs only (or mostly) encounter enemies so far weaker than them that the enemy can't threaten them at all. That would, in all likelihood, be boring for them, just like it would likely be boring to always fight enemies who have a good chance of TPKing you. There's the option for variety in difficulty of encounters and a DM is free to avail of the option (whether using a primarily attrition-based or primarily encounter-based system) and almost certainly will, so whether you can sustain mechanical interest using only the above tactic is irrelevant.</blockquote>

Verification