Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="xechnao" data-source="post: 5203537" data-attributes="member: 58105">Point #1: Tactical combat and complicated weapon tables are not the same thing. Point #2: Vastly detailed combat is not the same as tracking hit locations and the like. Point #3: It is a gameplay design issue. You have to ask yourself: What does tracking hit locations may add to the game?  Point #4: It depends how you get it designed. For example you may have complicated weapon tables without allowing the players to buy weapons. Instead they randomnly find weapons and they can carry only one. I suspect this totally changes many assumptions I suspect people have regarding what you are saying. Such a feature would have a different gameplay effect than allowing players to pick weapons from the list (mastering builds). Instead they would make strategic choices on the spot (do I pick this weapon or go on with my weapon?). Assuming of course that weapons are of equal general value and do not synergise partcullarly well with certain other things one may have. Having said that, weapon tables as of D&D for me are not worth it. They add nothing to the game. Similarly regarding hit locations as of rpgs I know: I have not seen a game that has made anything interested with hit locations. It does not matter to me if my player is hit in the right arm or right leg. What it matters is if he is in danger or not and in what condition is he in (can he fight?, can he walk? etch) You do not need hit location tables to track this. It is much more efficient to track exactly this: danger and condition.</blockquote>

Verification