Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8341219" data-attributes="member: 12731">This is pretty much just a huge aside, but this triggers me.The notion &quot;combat is scarily dangerous&quot; just doesn't work in any genre where you're meant to fight a lot. If you fight a lot, combat isn't very dangerous because otherwise your characters would never live to see the end of the campaign.You CAN make games where combat actually IS dangerous, but then the emphasis needs to lie in other areas: intrigue games, spy games, social games.RuneQuest is a game who many people actually think is more dangerous than a game like D&amp;D (that definitely is upfront with its hero-guarding mechanisms). But just because you don't have levels or hit points doesn't mean your game is very dangerous. Or.. it is, and your premise is fatally flawed, unless you're into sadistic self-harm.My point is: stop pretending combat is very dangerous. Now then, many will go &quot;okay so one combat isn't dangerous but multiple combats without rest might well be&quot;. That is, resource management. But the thing is - that's not very fun. There is a school of thought in D&amp;D-dom which says that the first 4 or 5 fights aren't supposed to be individually life-threatening, but the 6th or 7th such fight might well be, simply because you're now so low on resources, that you capacity to bounce back has been depleted.But this amounts to repetitive drawn-out play. Having individual combats (or short sequences thereof) are much more exciting, and immediately fulfilling. Which is why that is how most versions of D&amp;D are actually played, regardless of what each version's designers had in mind.---Anyway, combat is definitely a staple in S&amp;S, and using a game engine where combat is a penalty (such as those games where other things are a focus thus allowing them to treat combat as a true risk) and not a reward (it is very much a reward in D&amp;D) is not my idea of fun.I will now return you to your scheduled programming.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8341219, member: 12731"] This is pretty much just a huge aside, but this triggers me. The notion "combat is scarily dangerous" just doesn't work in any genre where you're meant to fight a lot. If you fight a lot, combat isn't very dangerous because otherwise your characters would never live to see the end of the campaign. You CAN make games where combat actually IS dangerous, but then the emphasis needs to lie in other areas: intrigue games, spy games, social games. RuneQuest is a game who many people actually think is more dangerous than a game like D&D (that definitely is upfront with its hero-guarding mechanisms). But just because you don't have levels or hit points doesn't mean your game is very dangerous. Or.. it is, and your premise is fatally flawed, unless you're into sadistic self-harm. My point is: stop pretending combat is very dangerous. Now then, many will go "okay so one combat isn't dangerous but multiple combats without rest might well be". That is, resource management. But the thing is - that's not very fun. There is a school of thought in D&D-dom which says that the first 4 or 5 fights aren't supposed to be individually life-threatening, but the 6th or 7th such fight might well be, simply because you're now so low on resources, that you capacity to bounce back has been depleted. But this amounts to repetitive drawn-out play. Having individual combats (or short sequences thereof) are much more exciting, and immediately fulfilling. Which is why that is how most versions of D&D are actually played, regardless of what each version's designers had in mind. --- Anyway, combat is definitely a staple in S&S, and using a game engine where combat is a penalty (such as those games where other things are a focus thus allowing them to treat combat as a true risk) and not a reward (it is very much a reward in D&D) is not my idea of fun. I will now return you to your scheduled programming. [/QUOTE]

Verification