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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9778018" data-attributes="member: 6667921">While I think “wasted turns” is usually a term you hear from the player side—someone spending a resource, power, or opportunity only to see nothing happen—I think it can apply to the game itself. If a turn requires a player to act, but only produces change when the action succeeds, that’s wasted effort for everyone.What if a failure did something other than miss the mark? What if it represented more than a binary hit or miss? Maybe it’s an exchange between opponents—a shifting advantage that defines who currently holds momentum. Were the characters skilled, lucky, or heroic enough to press the attack, or did their adversary seize the moment instead? The idea is that the pendulum should potentially swing both ways on every turn, rather than stay fixed until the dice finally allow something to happen.I think it’s not just acceptable, but expected that we approach this differently. The game doesn’t play the same at every table, so the solutions can’t be universal, either. I’m not trying to solve everyone’s problems—only to explore alternatives for groups who aren’t satisfied with the usual options. The goal is simply to get ourselves thinking beyond what’s already repeated in echo chambers.Where I think it gets interesting, though, is that for a lot of tables, combat is where the most time and emotional energy tends to go. So when the system makes that experience feel like a pause rather than a progression, it can leave players disengaged even if they’re otherwise invested in the story.You’re right that expectations play a big part here, and I agree—it’s definitely a Session 0 topic. The “right” approach might just come down to aligning the group on whether combat is meant to serve the story or interrupt it. Either option is viable if met with a consensus.</blockquote>

Verification