Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="xechnao" data-source="post: 4847657" data-attributes="member: 58105">Yeah my claims are these but you could substitute the last one of the three with the phrase: "not losing immersion" or "not having a decrease in immersion". There is no specific beef to show because this will depend from the game you want to make. I wanted to only provide some ideas regarding the possibilities and show that in theory it is possible, present some ideas in an abstract or theoretic level of how or why it could work.I want to avoid this for the sake of this thread. Game design has infinite possibilities -I do not believe it would be practical to seek a focus like this here.The luck you are talking about is about the result of the randomizer. How many sides roll a randomizer has nothing to do with luck because each side has no controlling power over the randomizer. I could easily add a third side, a fourth side etch which could roll dice that enter into the function of how the overall fate of one single conflict is decided. But the end mechanical result is the same. There is no difference in mechanics or gameplay: the difference is just a practical one and in the end it is about our habits. It is about comparing two copies of the same software, each one with a different interface. Some people may like more the one than the other depending on their habits. This is what I am seeing here.I want to make the distinction between significant or functional granularity and then perceivable granularity which may be nothing of the sort: just the effect of perceiving something that is presented in a more complicated form than it's most simplified model.Certainly, some times the possibility of this simplification might be there to make and other times it might not be. For example in D&D to resolve a melee you roll for various attack and damage dice for each one combatant separately (or attacks plus defenses of one combatant as you remodeled it up there) just to figure out who is gaining an advantage and who is losing it in terms of standing power in time while engaged in melee. You could figure out the same vastly simplifying the procedure. The procedure would be different and so perhaps the experience from a practical and rather psychological POV (the luck we were talking about) but the functional end result in terms of gameplay could be the same. That is, the end result of the mechanic of the melee "balance" could be the same even using a different structure or interface of mechanics. Of course I speaking theoretically and abstractely here. To show this in practice I would have to invent the simplifying mechanics and fine tune them to arrive at the same result. I do not want to engage in this exercise. Just show the possibility in a theoretic or abstract level and talk about this. See how strong and important people believe their habits to be. The one sided roll for monster-PC interaction versus rolls for each side is the first step to ask to talk about for showcasing this matter.</blockquote>

Verification