Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fairman Rogers" data-source="post: 6264803" data-attributes="member: 6747325">I'm not sure at this point that anyone is saying you are wrong per se, Imaro. I think what I'm seeing is a lot of explaining of different perceptions.This is a problem that game designers have to face all the time: how a mechanic &quot;feels&quot; versus how the math actually works. It seems like this mechanic feels just fine to you, but some of us are trying to explain why it doesn't feel right to us. I will admit that I am coming from a less D&amp;D-focused background. I generally dislike ALL 1d20 resolution mechanics, and whenever I am playing d20 games I try to build in rerolls or other ways to get around the reliance on the d20. (My main 4E character was an Elven Avenger of Tymora, if that gives you an idea.) I spend most of my time in Savage Worlds, where the players (and some villains) get two chances to succeed on every roll.To give an example that is similar but opposite to this discussion, I hear so much talk on forums and podcasts about Apocalypse World and its derivatives. Much of this talk surrounds the &quot;succeed with consequence&quot; result, as if that's the entire focus of the game. When you look at the mechanics, though, that range is pretty small. It is more likely that a player will either straight-up succeed or fail than &quot;succeed with consequence.&quot; Despite this narrow range, the very existence of that result seems to energize players of the system. It's almost all they talk about.So while the range of results we are talking about is indeed narrow, and the resource may not be as much an issue in play as it might seem in reading, nevertheless it can cause an issue of perception.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fairman Rogers, post: 6264803, member: 6747325"] I'm not sure at this point that anyone is saying you are wrong per se, Imaro. I think what I'm seeing is a lot of explaining of different perceptions. This is a problem that game designers have to face all the time: how a mechanic "feels" versus how the math actually works. It seems like this mechanic feels just fine to you, but some of us are trying to explain why it doesn't feel right to us. I will admit that I am coming from a less D&D-focused background. I generally dislike ALL 1d20 resolution mechanics, and whenever I am playing d20 games I try to build in rerolls or other ways to get around the reliance on the d20. (My main 4E character was an Elven Avenger of Tymora, if that gives you an idea.) I spend most of my time in Savage Worlds, where the players (and some villains) get two chances to succeed on every roll. To give an example that is similar but opposite to this discussion, I hear so much talk on forums and podcasts about Apocalypse World and its derivatives. Much of this talk surrounds the "succeed with consequence" result, as if that's the entire focus of the game. When you look at the mechanics, though, that range is pretty small. It is more likely that a player will either straight-up succeed or fail than "succeed with consequence." Despite this narrow range, the very existence of that result seems to energize players of the system. It's almost all they talk about. So while the range of results we are talking about is indeed narrow, and the resource may not be as much an issue in play as it might seem in reading, nevertheless it can cause an issue of perception. [/QUOTE]

Verification