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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mongo1967" data-source="post: 4377630" data-attributes="member: 70216">You'll have to forgive me for saying so bluntly, but I think this is an awful idea on a number of levels. From a gamist perspective, it distorts the EXP value, meaning that you'd have to completely redesign the EXP/encounter engine. Also, it would cause the game to be ruled by randomness in a way that would cripple the challenge of virtually every encounter. Brutes would be useless. (If you don't believe me, take note of when this would occur in your regular game. I think you'll be surprised.) Twin Strike would have a whopping 30% to kill anything each round. That's terrible balance and design.While the narrativist seemingly doesn't care (random deaths make good story), it would happen so often - but never to the PC's - that it would rapidly become passe and boring. Mowing your enemies down like wheat is only epic when having attained that ability is the culmination of an epic story. Winning through sheer luck is so much less exciting. (Actually, I can't imagine a primarily narrativist group liking this mechanic, as they tend to turn every battle into an ode, at least in my experience.)The simulationist would rail against the fact that this mechanic is disastrously one-sided and that it fails to make the game more realistic.Information on GNS Theory can be found at:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory</a>When I run an encounter with minions, I make sure that I describe the enemies in a way that points out the leaders, elites and solos. I don't make the minions obvious unless the PC's spend the time making skill checks. There's also an unspoken understanding at my table that too much metagaming spoils the game for all of us. This has worked well so far.</blockquote>

Verification