Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8034240" data-attributes="member: 72555">No, speed of play is important, and extra decision points slow down play.What is the benefit of that extra decision point (&quot;should I take my turn&quot;) to the value of play?&nbsp; I'd argue it has low benefit; not &quot;benefit to the character doing it&quot; but &quot;benefit to combat being fun&quot;.The cost is real.And the bigger the benefit to the player making that decision, the higher the cost, because you have to consider it more.When making a game, you have a &quot;decision budget&quot; in a sense.&nbsp; If you have too many important decisions for a player to make on their turn, the turn takes too long.Stripping out decisions that are fun-inefficient is a good move.&nbsp; Wasting decision-budget on that, instead of (I dunno) a more complex movement or attack system, is a bad game design decision.If you have a ridiculously long &quot;alternative initiative system&quot;, the question is how much fun does all of those rules add to the game?&nbsp; I really, really get the fun of writing simulation rules and complex rules, but having piles of rules cruft in actual play is a bad thing.Would you rather have players deciding &quot;do I take my turn now or later&quot;, or have more interesting decision to make about what they do do, right then?&nbsp; Because we can enrich the &quot;in turn&quot; decision making instead of the &quot;do I take my turn&quot; decision making.Heck, move to simultaneous per-round initiative with declaration starting with the person or creature who rolled last (and possibly evaluated backwards).&nbsp; That adds piles of fun complexity and decisions making to the game in a way that is way more fun-efficient than &quot;delayed action&quot; does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 8034240, member: 72555"] No, speed of play is important, and extra decision points slow down play. What is the benefit of that extra decision point ("should I take my turn") to the value of play? I'd argue it has low benefit; not "benefit to the character doing it" but "benefit to combat being fun". The cost is real. And the bigger the benefit to the player making that decision, the higher the cost, because you have to consider it more. When making a game, you have a "decision budget" in a sense. If you have too many important decisions for a player to make on their turn, the turn [b]takes too long[/b]. Stripping out decisions that are [b]fun-inefficient[/b] is a good move. Wasting decision-budget on that, instead of (I dunno) a more complex movement or attack system, is a bad game design decision. If you have a ridiculously long "alternative initiative system", the question is [b]how much fun does all of those rules add to the game[/b]? I really, really get the fun of writing simulation rules and complex rules, but having piles of rules cruft in actual play is a bad thing. Would you rather have players deciding "do I take my turn now or later", or have more interesting decision to make about what they do do, right then? Because we can enrich the "in turn" decision making [b]instead[/b] of the "do I take my turn" decision making. Heck, move to simultaneous per-round initiative with declaration starting with the person or creature who rolled last (and possibly evaluated backwards). That adds piles of fun complexity and decisions making to the game in a way that is way more fun-efficient than "delayed action" does. [/QUOTE]

Verification