Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 5138524" data-attributes="member: 386">&quot;Feel the same&quot; and &quot;Carry the same amount of risk&quot; are two different things.Let's say the game is set up so that the players choose goals for their PCs; the DM provides obstacles.&nbsp; If the choice is, &quot;Should we fight goblins or undead in order to reach our goal?&quot;, it's not really a choice since the risk is the same and the reward is the same.I think that the lack of meaningful choices breaks a game.&nbsp; (A game is unbalanced when the choices are balanced heavily to one side or another.)I made the comment about PTA because the fact that this choice is not meaningful opens space up for new ones.First, a little bit about Prime Time Adventures.&nbsp; You play a protagonist of a TV show.&nbsp; You have an Issue, like &quot;I was raised by goblins and no one accepts me.&quot;&nbsp; You focus your PC around that issue.So, back to D&amp;D.&nbsp; If the choice between undead and goblins isn't a meaningful one, it opens up space for that choice to be about something else.&nbsp; The PTA analogy is that you can make the choice be about your PC's issue - &quot;I want to go talk to the goblins to see why they're raiding the towns; when they raised me, they may have been thieves but they were not murderous.&quot;Another character (NPC or PC) might not want to deal with the goblins, for whatever reason (a Paladin gung-ho on defeating undead, a mercenary hoping to rob a specific item from a tomb, a wizard who wants to speak with the dead).&nbsp; He might say, &quot;Look, goblin-lover, we only hired you because those dirty bastards who raised you taught you how to deal with traps.&nbsp; We don't pay you for your opinions.&quot;&nbsp; (ie. It's all about the PC's issue.)Taking away the risk-reward choice means you can focus on something else like this.However, if you're focusing on an issue like that, does the tactical combat system add value to play?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 5138524, member: 386"] "Feel the same" and "Carry the same amount of [b]risk[/b]" are two different things. Let's say the game is set up so that the players choose goals for their PCs; the DM provides obstacles. If the choice is, "Should we fight goblins or undead in order to reach our goal?", it's not really a choice since the risk is the same and the reward is the same. I think that the lack of meaningful choices breaks a game. (A game is unbalanced when the choices are balanced heavily to one side or another.) I made the comment about PTA because the fact that this choice is not meaningful opens space up for new ones. First, a little bit about Prime Time Adventures. You play a protagonist of a TV show. You have an Issue, like "I was raised by goblins and no one accepts me." You focus your PC around that issue. So, back to D&D. If the choice between undead and goblins isn't a meaningful one, it opens up space for that choice to be about something else. The PTA analogy is that you can make the choice be about your PC's issue - "I want to go talk to the goblins to see why they're raiding the towns; when they raised me, they may have been thieves but they were not murderous." Another character (NPC or PC) might not want to deal with the goblins, for whatever reason (a Paladin gung-ho on defeating undead, a mercenary hoping to rob a specific item from a tomb, a wizard who wants to speak with the dead). He might say, "Look, goblin-lover, we only hired you because those dirty bastards who raised you taught you how to deal with traps. We don't pay you for your opinions." (ie. It's all about the PC's issue.) Taking away the risk-reward choice means you can focus on something else like this. However, if you're focusing on an issue like that, does the tactical combat system add value to play? [/QUOTE]

Verification