Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 1654828" data-attributes="member: 5890">Unfortunately, you're trying to run a game which can basically be attempting to simulate ANYTHING. Anything at all. Which means that the GM (who, in the game of kriegspiel must be a totally unbiased expert in military tactics whos judgement is totally accepted by all the players) needs to be a respected expert in EVERYTHING. Otherwise the game breaks down into arguements about... everything he's not an expert in. Beyond that, few GM's are capable of that sort of totally unbiased judgement, especially in the face of an argumentative player. The D&D game system is an attempt to set out rules which, while not accurately simulating everything, do provide a common ground to work with. Throwing them out in favour of a wholly judgement-based system is, IMHO a bad idea.Furthermore, any game which is wholly relying on the whims of the GM (which, lets face it, this model is) is not a simulationist's game. It's a narrative game. It may be a really realistic story, but it's still a story before a game or a simulation.How does it support tactical play? Tactics tend to be based on a firm understanding of the situation, which is why they're totally ruined by bad intelligence.If that bad intelligence is part of the game (ie - your character doesn't understand fact X), that's fine - it's still tactical play.If the bad intelligence is rooted in the system (ie - noone knows what the rules actually are, or the rules change often), then tactical play becomes impossible.Yeah, but I don't think any of the systems you've brought up would have the 'feel' of D&D in the slightest.The power attack one just eliminates the bonuses for power attack on AoO's. You could also allow power attack on an attack by attack basis, so you NEVER need to remember the power attack number. That increases options and reduces complexity in the same way.The expertise one doesn't remove any options.The dodge bonus one doesn't remove any options - it just makes the dodge feat more powerful.Modifications to AC simply mean that incorporeal touch-attacking creatures are the same as any other touch-attacking creature. Which doesn't really limit options. If you want defense against them, you can get it. The only difference is that it's an active defense, not a passive one.Time alterations on spells don't actually make a difference. In practise, 1 rd/level spells last for a single combat, and expire if there's a break. 1 minute/level spells last until there's a pause in the action, like taking 20, or resting. 1 hour/level spells last all day. This is because, in practise, the DM governs how much time things take. If you step through an entire adventure in 6-second increments, you'll usually find that the whole thing gets done in almost no time at all. Typically a DM will declare, as fiat that a particular spell, or group of spells has expired as characters fart about. It makes no real difference to how the game goes, unless you're in a habit of playing high-level characters who routinely break of combat and return to it because they know their spells will last.Actually - I don't think it does. Typically the players NEVER get told how many hitpoints a monster has. Typically the DM doesn't get much of an emotional attachement to an individual monster. Hence swapping out hps for a damage save IN THE CASE OF LOW IMPACT MONSTERS will have no effect on flavour at all, but will have an immense impact in terms of speeding up gameplay.</blockquote>

Verification