Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 4847494" data-attributes="member: 26473">Okay.I'm sorry, but I don't believe that's true at all. You've made a couple of very specific claims about benefits, such as reducing the number of die rolls, speeding up the game, and increasing immersion. So I'm asking, where's the beef?Saying that a minis wargame and a roleplaying game are alike because they both have a turn structure? That's true from orbit, but those games may have little in common by the time you get down to the level of actually dealing with rolling dice to resolve action.And it's under the microscope we actually experience the game.If you want an idea at "how this might work," you may want to take a moment to look at games that already do this, or something like it - I believe Primetime Adventures was cited as an example.Okay.If I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I'm not, you're arguing that because the result is that one side gets to go first and the other second, substituting a roll against a static number produces the same result. I can kinda see where you're coming from here, but I think the luck element becomes completely one-sided (either you beat the target number, or you don't) rather than a function of the interaction between two randomly-generated values out of a range of possibles. Rolling a twenty against the same twelve over and over, and rolling a twenty when the referee's rolled a nineteen, are very different experiences.I roll to hit, and I roll my defense, versus I roll to hit and the referee rolls to hit.Net difference: zero.I roll to detect a trap, versus the referee rolls to see if I detect a trap.Net difference: zero.The referee rolls to see if an effect succeeds and I roll a save against it, versus I roll against my defense and I roll a save.Net difference: zero.I roll for initiative and the referee rolls for initiative, versus I roll for initiative against a target number.Net difference: one.Well, you got me there, I guess. That's one less roll I need to make per encounter. Whoa, everything just turned blue from the acceleration! (That's meant to be funny, not snarky, so please take it in the spirit in which its intended. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> )It seems like you could reduce the number of rolls by making pretty much everything an opponent does equal a single target value; instead of a roll for success with an effect (where the effect is a spell, or a power, or an area attack) and a save to avoid some or all of the effect, then the roll for successful use and the saving throw would be conflated into a single value.It could work, and I'm sure there are games out there that do this, but again, I think that the loss of granularity might lessen the experience in actual play.Consider a game with fencing rules like Flashing Blades. Each turn a player has a number of options to choose from on offense and defense: I can choose some sort of footwork - sidestep, dodge, step back, or duck - which affects the opponent's target number to hit, or I can attempt to parry a hit instead, in which case I'm rolling against my own parry score. The first is simple - modify a target number and roll - but the second is far more dynamic, with both opponents in the duel taking a direct role, and roll, in the resolution.There is also another move - counter, which covers the riposte in fencing - which is dependent on my opponent missing, giving me a chance to make a second attack.Making multiple defense rolls doesn't capture the back-and-forth feel of rolling against another person at the table. Part of the experience of playing the game that the rules are intended to capture would be lost.And one cannot reduce the number of die rolls without reducing the granularity once again, which to me also works against the feel of dueling the rules are meant to emulate.</blockquote>

Verification