Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3824317" data-attributes="member: 18280">I recall it being specifically suggested in 2e.  In fact, it came up so often in 2e that I bought into it for some time, which absolutely destroyed the game I was running.  "Threshold of significance" is significance to enough degree that the aspect in question is affected in a meaningful way.  For example, if buying cheese is fun for the PCs, but does not affect the overall story of the game/adventure in a discernable degree, then it fails to meet the story threshold of significance.Is having 80% of your resources significant?  Sure.  Is showing off your cool powers interesting?  Sometimes.  However, unless these things cause some mechanical change, they fail to pass the mechanical threshold of significance.Perhaps I was unclear on what "threshold of significance" means; I thought it fairly self-evident.  Within the scope of a given encounter, mechanics change as resources are lost, granted.  But, unless those mechanical changes represent a clear chance of loss for the PCs, and assuming that they are "undone" after the encounter, why should the players care?IOW, when there is a clear chance of loss, the mechanical changes are meaningful, and pass the mechanical theshold of significance.  When the mechanical changes affect other encounters in a meaningful way, they pass the mechanical theshold of significance.  Otherwise, I fail to see a circumstance where they do.  If the focus of the game becomes managing resources within an encounter, that to me implies that each encounter (in general) must therefore make management a significant issue.  IOW, there must be a clear chance of loss.Again, if the only mechanical theshold of significance remains when there is a clear chance of loss, perforce the proposed 4e system increases the reliance on win/lose scenarios beyond what older editions depended upon.If resource management in each encounter becomes the primary consideration, then useage of powerful resources becomes important.  Sure, there are ways that you can design a system to make one pause before using powerful resources (AD&D 1e did this, for example), but that is not what is described in the blog entries that we have seen thus far.  If you cannot immediately regain a non-meat-and-potatoes resource, for example, then you are less likely to use it.But, if I can end the adventuring day, then I can regain the resource, and continue to use it.The greater the number of win/lose encounters you have, the greater the chance that you will eventually lose.  Again, the specifics of the system might pad against this happening, hedging against loss by including safety valves (such as core Action Points).  However, the more effective the padding, the more oomph is required to have an actual clear chance of loss, and therefore the more the DM must throw at the group to pass the mechanical theshold of significance.I feel certain that you understand that choosing to cast a spell instead of swinging a sword may pass the mechanical theshold of significance in a given round (because one precludes the other, for example) without passing the mechanical theshold of significance for the encounter.  However, I would imagine that most players would (and do) attach greater significance to those actions that pass the mechanical thesholds of significance of both round and encounter.Similarly, a battle can pass the mechanical theshold of significance within an encounter, but not within the adventure that the encounter occurs in.  Again, I would imagine that most players would (and do) attach greater significance to those actions that pass the mechanical thesholds of significance of both encounter and adventure.When win/lose becomes the mechanical theshold of significance of the encounter, the odds are pretty good of also passing the MToS of the adventure if you pass the MToS of the encounter.  Encounters simply become harder.Or perhaps we simply differ on our concepts of what a "challenge" is.  IMHO, there is no such thing as a challenge that precludes the possibility of loss.  Within the context of a role-playing game, there are many types of loss possible.  Within the context of the mechanics of a role-playing game, there is only loss of resources.  (Understand, of course, that I include life, mobility, and so on as "resources" -- a "resource" in this context is anything that you can use to mechanically affect the game.)Since PCs in 3e are not forced more often to expend their most powerful (per-day) resources quickly just to survive, then being forced isn't the issue.  (Obviously, though, being forced would create an issue.)  If I used the word "forced" earlier, it was a bad choice of words.  Let me instead say "encouraged".If I know that I have a significant chance of losing in any given encounter, and no other factor presents itself, I would be an idiot not to use my best abilities to defeat that encounter.  I am not forced to use them.  I am merely encouraged to use them.If I know that the everage encounter includes a significant chance of losing, and no other factor presents itself, I would be an idiot not to ensure that I have my best abilities available to defeat that encounter.  I am not forced to have them.  I am merely encouraged to have them.Previous editions forced players to factor between these extremes:  Is it better to use this now, or save it for a tougher encounter later?  If, OTOH, you can both use it now, and save it for a tougher encounter later, there is no question as to what the prudent course of action is.  3.0 introduced this problem in a big way by making it very easy for PCs to rest, and very difficult for that rest to be believeably (within the context of the system) disturbed.  This meant, effectively, that any major resource could be reset after each encounter, leading to the 9-9:15 adventuring day.The proposed solution (give more resources that automatically regenerate so that the PCs will not have to rest) will not solve the 9-9:15 adventuring day problem because:(1)  Unless the non-per-encounter powers are complete throw-aways, they will perforce become more important because they are the only resources targettable to achieve a mechanical theshold of significance greater than that of the combat round.(2)  So long as players experiencing this problem (again in general) both can use their best powers, and can have them back afterwards, they will.I hope that helped.RC</blockquote>

Verification