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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9851944" data-attributes="member: 4937">I like them.  Cramming all the different rules into a single unified system often just ignores that the things being simulated are wildly different in character.  Applying your combat rules to social interactions is a big sign the designer is more into formalism and rules as read, rather than rules in play and play testing.  I think that you can make compelling minigames for the main moments of excitement and a generic test mechanic for almost everything else.  Each minigame looks at the situation you are trying to simulate and deals with its unique characteristics while trying to also be useful in play.  Of course, that doesn't mean that the minigames have to be wholly distinctive, but if combat, persuasion, evasion, mass combat, sanity/horror/stress and so forth play out differently in the real world then its reasonable they should play out differently at the table.  And having minigames recognizes that a great simplified tactical combat system might be at a loss when running a chase scene and far too granular to run a combat with 2000 combatants on each side.  Morale, command and control, and so forth might be not important considerations at the tactical level, but be hugely important to how mass combat would play out.   It makes sense to know whether something is 8 feet from something else when you have a detailed map, but less sense when you are engaged in a chase that goes over miles or tens of miles of terrain.  That you can defeat someone in combat doesn't mean you can defeat someone in a debate with the same degree of finality - I like for example how in DitV someone can always try to trump defeat at social combat by resorting to violence.</blockquote>

Verification