Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N01H3r3" data-source="post: 6726903" data-attributes="member: 6799909">You're welcome to propose such things, but bear in mind that you're not the only person this game is being written for. Also, these suggestions of "if X, then roll Y to see what happens" add additional time to task resolution, which is something we're looking to avoid where possible.You're also still coming at it from the perspective of "how can I minimise this element of the game I despise", and while that's a fair enough perspective for you to take, it's not exactly one I can embrace professionally.Yes, Threat does cause problems for the group, rather than the individual. But you know what, that happens in real life too. I've been in situations where I've faced problems indirectly caused by someone else's actions. Hell, anyone who has ever been stuck in traffic has probably been negatively impacted by another person's decisions. The game in its current form has Momentum as being of collective benefit - you can capitalise on your allies' successes as much as you can your own - so having Threat as a collective problem mirrors that nicely. A group succeeds together, and they struggle together. The revised version we're working on at present doesn't necessarily minimise the presence of Threat, but it does clarify and define it better as risk-taking and recklessness, giving it a clearer place in the action and tying it more closely to the character's choices.</blockquote>