Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7362009" data-attributes="member: 6919838">ClaytonCross You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of testing both as its objective and timing.Decisions like "how many battles before armor fail do we want" (the impactful vs crippling) are not determined by testing. They are design goals.Testing is not first to set goals but is well after goals to see if the model reaches the goal.By the time UA releases stuff, it has already seen design, goals, requirements, been vetted against already establish data etc and passed whatever their internal criteria are - then it is handed out to gauge interest. If you look at a lot of the dev comments on feedback to UA they rarely focus on power or balance or frequency or numbers - they mention and spend more time on interest, uniqueness and other broader isdues like complexity vs simplicity.Alpha and beta are way after goals/requirements and internal dev and testing.As for content vs personal blah blah, i note you dismissed the actual question for details about the "system" and goals and chose to go straight for personal.Some might see that as indicative of what you want to engage in.As for your meta-think on dragons vs kobold daggers and their armor shredding capabilities, that would be a very difficult sell to players  for most settings that would be called gritty. In my experience, most players have preconceived notions about how durable armor is against mostly typical small weapons (extremely durable in fact) and they also have little to no problem seeing masdive dragon strike as much much more damaging.Part of that can stem from fantasy lit/film/source which have on numerous occasion described or shown "teeth as big as daggers" or "claws like swords" and the like.I can well imagine if I tried to sell gritty and kobold knive shred armor better that dragons mouth full of daggers - mostly my players would laugh.It is easier to see your attempt to claim that as a feature or goal as driven by "need to defend the mechanic" than to see it as an actual in play game world gritty reality you **wanted** to design a sysyem to create.  But if you want to stick to the "goal" and such position thats fine.I myself coined in my games decades ago "My Stupid Rule." It says in short that if i would feel stupid in play in game explaining how some rule worked and the redults it creates, i di not use that rule.I have found that as a bery usefil guiding principle in many different settings in many diffetent systems. It also works well way outside of rpgs to most any design appproach.Telling someone that the giant dragon with rows of teeth "as big as daggers"  does no damage to their plate armor on a bite and on a miss does less danage to the armor that say four kobolds stabbing them with daggers and missing **would not pass** "My Stupid Rule."You may find that kind of disconnect between "in game reality" and "gritty claim" to limit your proposal's appeal beyond those invested in finding a way to make your initial idea work.I would be fine with providing more direct sub-system analysis and suggestion and less design and process related info or inconsistency info, but again, you serm unable or unwilling to set basic benchmarks or targets to aim for.</blockquote>

Verification