Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kurotowa" data-source="post: 9838470" data-attributes="member: 27957">If action economy is king, then unless you're trading a low value action for a high value one via a powerful stun or the like, you want to focus on damage so you can thin the enemy ranks and reduce their number of actions. If wound penalties exist, then it's all about the death spiral where taking hits makes you less effective in combat which makes you take more hits, and getting in the first big hit is crucial. Again and again, the mechanical incentives of the game engine are for aggressive offense.When is defense better than offense? In sports or fighting games, you might want to play defensive if you have the lead and you're trying to run out the clock. But that assumes a hard time limit on the contest, and it's disputed if playing not to lose is actually better than playing to win. With MMORPG raid bosses, there might be different phases, some of which are especially dangerous and require a focus on survival and some of which intentionally give the players a window to focus on doing as much damage as possible. But that's a very different fight dynamic, and requires fights with a constant threat of a TPK whose only penalty is 30 seconds to reset and try again.From a game theory standpoint, playing defensively doesn't win most fights. It can let you run out the clock, if that's to your advantage, or it can let you win via resource attrition, if that's in your favor. Passive defenses are fine and dandy, because they give you more sustain. But usually, the way to win is to try and take your opponent out of the fight as quickly as possible, limiting their opportunities to inflict damage or get a lucky break. And it's very hard to design a game system that break from that model.</blockquote>

Verification