Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2325375" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>Actually, iirc its a role playing game. To some there is a difference.yes but, particularly in role playing games, the rules are but one piece of the overall puzzle, not the sole determining factor.in a space shoot 'em up, you mean like an arcade game, sure. in a roleplaying game, there may be many different reasons for me not purchaising one type over another. Perhaps the second tier laser is produced by a company from my character's homeworld and my guy wants to spend his money there by preference. perhaps the corp producing the most optimal lasers also supports political factions my character does not prefer. perhaps the superior lasers are being sold at overly competitive prices to do what you suggest, eliminate the competition, and my guy doesn't want to see all the other producers go under leaving only one supplier.Even as far as "balance" goes, there are plenty of ways "balance" can be handled beyond the mere statistics. Perhaps the optimal lasers are "more expensive", are harder to find, are sold at fewer establishments, have more upkeep or even have fewer people trained in their upkeep and repair. The lesser potency lasers may be widely available or may have been so ubiquitous that nearly anywhere you can find a tech to work on them when needed and spare parts are easy to come by.Most of these would need to be MECHANICALLY expressed but would be a matter of setting.There is a huge difference between a game and a role playing game. Monopoly, chess and go don't have characters, story, background and the like as a part of their makeup... DnD and C&C do.If the *only* market force were the game mechanics, true, but an RPG world is more than its mechanics alone. GO is a game driven by mechanics alone. Chess is a game driven by mechanics alone. RPGs are not, well, not for most people i know.If your decisions for PCs and NPCs alike are only motivated by mechanics to the extent you describe here, your games are a lot different than those I am used to.For some, there is more to an RPG setting and to RPg character than statistics.Again, there may be many reasons why this isn't true. Its certainly a lot cheaper to outfit fighters without plate than with. So, if the plate guy can beat a leather guiy 1-on-1 BUT not say 3-on-1, if a king can outfit 3 times as many leather guys for the same cost... see, suddenly its not as simply as the statistics of damage and AC one-on-one. Suddenly it makes sense IN THE SETTIONG for more than plate to exist, and all it took was looking one stepp further than the base statistics of damage and AC.Survive, sure. I can buy that without question. However, survive and defeat in one-on-one encounter is another thing entirely. I am not historian, but i have stayed in holiday inn expresses and saw shows on the history channel, and it doesn;t fit with my recollection that the answer to plate wearing knights was one-on-one duels with knife fighters or the like, but usually it was outnumbering them many to one or otherwise trapping them.I am not sure the reality of "our world" that you refer to supports your position all that well.Now, here is how i feel... having little experience with C&C mind you...For rules light I agree with as little differentiation between weapons as possible.here is why.In fantasy fiction and movies, it is most common for a character's choice of weapon to be merely an affectation of the character personality and role. A dwarf uses an axe and an elf uses a sword and bow and a human fighter uses a rapier or whatever because thats what looks cool and sets them apart as characters. The choice of weapons is **NOT** driven by a statistical assessment of the weapon.Whenever an RPG provides a differentiation of statistical mechanics for weapons, inevitably some players decide the statistical analysis should determine their character's choices, and often they feel those same statistical figurings should determine everyone else's too.IMO, the closer model to fantasy lit/film sources would be to have damage by weapons size such as light = 1d6, medium = 1d8, large = 1d10 and not much more. Alow the chaacter to define his weapons as an axe, a spear, or a sword or mace as fits his image of the character. Let the very personal decision of "my characters weapon" be character driven and not statistically driven.Alternatively, I do like the notion mentioned before of the class based damage, or class-level based damage which again leaves the choice of weapon flavor to style.As for your own personal issues, it might not have been said, but it clearly looks like the particular rules set or the basic rules plus gm's house rules don't share your design goals of making "fighters who have high dex and low strength equate statistically to those with the reverse." That isn't a failing in the game, but simply a design goal they did not embrace, and did not try to include.[/QUOTE]

Verification