Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6070987" data-attributes="member: 87792">Quick, easy, and a third rate &quot;solution&quot; that has been tried by many games and been interesting in none of them.&nbsp; Giving a maneuver a simple penalty to hit means that there is always the same optimal solution against the same monster.&nbsp; (The classic would be the GURPS &quot;Go for the eyes&quot; fighter with an absurd weapon skill and a bonus to called shots - it is no more inherently interesting to always go for the eyes than always attack normally any other way).Repeating the same idea that's failed many other games (and failed D&amp;D Next already) won't mysteriously make it work.There's a difference between things you can try and things you have practiced so much they become instinctive.&nbsp; At Wills are things you've practiced so much they become instinctive.Good.&nbsp; Because we've been round it in this thread.And yet you want to make your &quot;role-playing game&quot; incredibly rigid with little room for differentiating characters (you want to remove feats), little point doing anything in combat except mashing the same button until it stops working (which is what both to hit penalties for maneuvers and feat based maneuvers lead to), and make your characters into cardboard cutouts who never practice or get any better at special tricks and only &quot;absolute basic skill&quot;.&nbsp; You want a &quot;role-playing game&quot; with no mechanical ways of fleshing out your role.The reason simple combat works in oD&amp;D is that combat is something you want to avoid like the plague.&nbsp; It risks your life for very few XP and a probability of early death.&nbsp; And you want it over fast to get back to the interesting parts - the exploration, trying to outthink the dungeon, and loot-gathering.&nbsp; Making combat complex by adding maneuvers cuts against this design philosophy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6070987, member: 87792"] Quick, easy, and a third rate "solution" that has been tried by many games and been interesting in none of them. Giving a maneuver a simple penalty to hit [I]means that there is always the same optimal solution against the same monster[/I]. (The classic would be the GURPS "Go for the eyes" fighter with an absurd weapon skill and a bonus to called shots - it is no more inherently interesting to always go for the eyes than always attack normally any other way). Repeating the same idea that's failed many other games (and failed D&D Next already) won't mysteriously make it work. There's a difference between things you can try and things you have practiced so much they become instinctive. At Wills are things you've practiced so much they become instinctive. Good. Because we've been round it in this thread. And yet you want to make your "role-playing game" incredibly rigid with little room for differentiating characters (you want to remove feats), little point doing anything in combat except mashing the same button until it stops working (which is what both to hit penalties for maneuvers and feat based maneuvers lead to), and make your characters into cardboard cutouts who never practice or get any better at special tricks and only "absolute basic skill". You want a "role-playing game" [I]with no mechanical ways of fleshing out your role[/I]. The reason simple combat works in oD&D is that [I]combat is something you want to avoid like the plague[/I]. It risks your life for very few XP and a probability of early death. And you want it over fast to get back to the interesting parts - the exploration, trying to outthink the dungeon, and loot-gathering. Making combat complex by adding maneuvers cuts against this design philosophy. [/QUOTE]

Verification