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

  • From: Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:01:47 -0700

its kind of funny they talk about the idea eric presented of injuries which
temporarily decrease your max health :P

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Kent Petersen <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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: