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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kromanjon" data-source="post: 9616199" data-attributes="member: 20680">I would say that in a system where any attack can kill trading blows is never the optimal choice. Yes a PCs blow might also be deadly unless internal logic dictates otherwise (such as a small dagger to a giants foot). But apart from extreme examples let's say we have two fighters going up against each other. One is more skilled than the other and has a 90% chance of hitting while the other has 10% chance. Is it optimal for the 90%er to trade blows? Only if he's willing to take the chance of having a 10% chance of dying.We do seem to be in different head spaces when it comes to narrative as your example was still very much a rules example in my eyes even though the rules are in many ways narratively driven. Let me give you an example myself.Back in the days me and the guys were playing Earthdawn 1st ed. In this game you could get heroic successes and we did a house rule that said that every time they did a heroic success they could narrate how their character performed this feat. It was amazing and some of the most epic moments of people flipping, jumping, spinning, ricocheting and all forms of inhuman maneuvers.So what if each roll was a heroic success? What if the player got to describe all their rolls, successes and failures? Would this mitigate the tedium of just rolling attacks and damage?I would like to forgo your answer a bit here because I think you'll have very good reasons to oppose my suggestions and I'm really not trying to change your mind. I get the feeling that you simply want mechanical diversity and I get that. I only feel that it's not a requirement to have complex mechanics to narrate a complex battle.</blockquote>

Verification