Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 9188117" data-attributes="member: 467">I was watching the most recent MCDM/Matt Coville video about their nee game, and during the discussion of the value of tactical options, something occurred to me: in traditional RPGs with a strong tactical element (like D&D, but others too) there is an inherent asymmetry in those tactical contests. While the number of combatants on either side might be equal or even in the GM's favor, the number of minds at work is solidly, explicitly in the favor of the players.This is as opposed to a traditional war game, where players are expected to be on even footing in that regard.Now, in RPGs I think it is broadly accepted that the PCs should have an advantage since they are the protagonists,  and this inherent asymmetry actually helps with that.However, I am curious what others think of the tactical asymmetry of such games. Specifically,  what are the fun and interesting mitigating factors when the intent is to create a more even contest where te PCs feel like they have a potential to lose? D&D usually does thisvthrough some form of difficulty scaling, but are there other options?What do you think? Does tactical asymmetry figure into your playstyle or system preferences?</blockquote>