NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6459485" data-attributes="member: 37579">Which can work IF DoaM mechanics have a "near miss" component, such as missing by 4 or less. But even then it still doesn't take into consideration missing due to cover or the like. Mechanics are half of the game. At best. Maybe a third. The best mechanics can harm the game if they interact poorly with the narrative. For example, <a href="http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer" target="_blank">dissociative mechanics</a> which might be sound mechanically but problematic in other ways. Almost none of the problems I have with DoaM are mechanical. I do think it skews the risk:reward ratio because, unlike spells that deal automatic damage, there's no expenditure of resources. And as damage is assumed it devalues disadvantage and attack penalties.But most of my problems are narrative. Both with how missing is described and how hit points are described. Not the same thing at all. Damage on a Miss is very different from Damage on a Failed Save. If I have to change the way I run the game to play the game, then there's a problem. The game should change for me and to suit my needs, not the other way around. Period.I don't want to change my narrative just so a player can feel like they weren't completely effective. Missing isn't that bad, it's not some horrible hardship that must be avoided at all cost. It's okay to miss.</blockquote>

Verification