[project1dev] Re: almost completely on topic... :P

  • From: Kent Petersen <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:53:03 -0700

I agree that this is an issue. I personally like to lean toward the rapidly
regenerating smaller resource pool method. I think all battles and traps and
events should have meaning and not just be thrown out at you for attrition.
I think there should be a blend of the 2 concepts with a focus on short term
relevance to give each battle or trap extra meaning.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "Many traditional RPGs have finite non-regenerating resources that are
> restored only at particular points (such as inns, etc.). Resource management
> is of long-term relevance, but rarely relevant within a single regular
> combat. This allows for less challenging battles to have meaningful
> consequences (consumption of resources), but often encourages a
> (subjectively) boring degree of resource conservation (eg: magic-users who
> avoid using any magic at all if they can help it)
>
> In RPGs with rapidly regenerating (but smaller) resource pools, resource
> management is of short-term relevance only. This may allow for greater
> tactical depth within a single combat since the player can be expected to
> use a range of abilities, rather than conserve them, and running dry during
> a single fight is plausible and must be managed. However, if resources
> regenerate between battles, any fight which does not present a reasonable
> chance of outright defeating the player is effectively just taking up time.
> Attrition is not possible. Moreover, I think you lose a significant degree
> of dramatic tension that can come from being deep in dangerous territory,
> and running low on resources. In such a system, no matter how many battles
> you slog through, you're still effectively as fresh as when you set out.
>
> Is it possible to design an RPG where resource management is relevant both
> in the short-term and long-term? Where excessive conservatism is not
> encouraged, but moderate-difficulty battles are not made irrelevant?
>
> What are some of your opinions are on the subject of resource management
> and attrition in RPGs (or even more generally)? How do you feel about
> systems with/without significant attrition? Are there any games that you
> think have done it unusually well?"
>
>
> More as well as other people responding at...
> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=533360
>

Other related posts: