screeg wrote:Narsham wrote:I'm mostly thinking about adventure areas which lock you in. Offering limited-use campfires instead of offering infinite use fires means the designer can make them available earlier, while rewarding players who don't need to rest that often.
I get what you're saying, but I don't want them available earlier. I like the challenges BS presented with lock-in situations and I like the way they were done. How are players rewarded for not resting? Don't you mean that sloppy players are punished by running out of campfire?
OK, let's take the Orc Fort. (SPOILER WARNING.)
Once you get to the locked-off portion, your first chance at a campfire is to kill the level 1 leader and rest there. Once you do that, you can rest between every single one of the level 2 battles if you wanted to.
Alternately, you make the deal with the level 1 leader and you end up trying to clear level 2 without a campfire.
So I agree with you that the first part of the design worked well. But offering an infinite campfire takes all the challenge out of the second level. Not offering one at all, IMO, makes the second level too difficult for most players. Offering a limited campfire encourages players to "save" their resting as long as possible without forcing a player to revert to an old save upon discovering that he spent too many resources to have any chance at winning the next fight.
I wonder if the save/load dynamic isn't part of the disagreement here? My assumption is that a player who makes some play mistakes (or "mistakes"--like spending out spells in the dragon fight and not having enough resources left to win the last fight of the second level after cutting a deal on level 1) and gets himself into a situation where he lacks the resources to continue will either revert to an old save or quit playing. Choice two may be unavoidable in some instances, but a good game will make most players want to keep playing. But save-game slots are simply another layer of resource management. I save, enter the next fight, spend X resources to win, save in a second slot and proceed. If I lose the fight, I revert to my nearest save and try again. In some instances, especially at the lower levels, I may lack vital resources needed to win (generally speaking, spell slots). Then I need to revert to an earlier save and try to conserve resources in those earlier battles.
IMO, ideal design means pushing the average party (and player) close to the limit, then allowing for resource recovery via a campfire. Wait too long and you push players into repeating the same content trying to conserve resources better, or convince them to give up completely. Offer recovery too soon and the challenge drops. Offer it constantly and the challenge drops to zero.
Don't get me wrong--a player who wants a greater challenge can always choose not to rest and see what happens. If you don't then have the option of resting and recovering when you hit the point where you can't handle the next fight, though, that's a problem. And if the game provides strong incentives to behave a certain way--either by using the campfire after every fight, or by using the campfire as infrequently as possible--then most players will follow those pushes and prods. Limited campfires (and, potentially, limited uses) are a prod to the player to conserve resources and try to push through multiple combats; limit them too greatly, though, and you push players into the save/reload/abandon game spiral.
It's like the difference between a "sandbox" game which encourages exploration and has built-in rewards (which may in turn affect your play of the main storyline) and those which claim to offer you freedom but then crush your character if you try to take advantage of it...