Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 240814" data-attributes="member: 326">Hi hong! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Not necessarily. Simply because the mechanics would parallel reality (where applicable).So you may as well think along the lines of 'I am more skilled than opponent A' - and attack him, whereas you may be less skilled than opponent B and run away?eg. The SAS know they are more skilled than the Taliban. Better equipped and better trained in tactics.In a fight between the two; Intelligence Reports would be akin to 'metagaming'."Know the enemy and know yourself, and you will never be defeated in a hundred battles." etc.Actually a campaign does have to have verisimilitude otherwise you won't be able to relate to it! Exactly which point(s) in Star Wars do you have issues with?The Detention Centre?Where they initially had the element of surprise?Or when they were pinned in the corridor with what looked like 75% cover and the enemy Stormtroopers are forced to labour through a small opening one at a time?Stormtroopers are rank and file soldiers though - not elite troops or heroes.I'm not advocating changing the mechanics to solve bad DMing - what I do advocate is changing them to promote verisimilitude and enhance how players relate to the game. Increasing the atmosphere and thrill of roleplaying in the process.</blockquote>

Verification