Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5741954" data-attributes="member: 54877">One of the reasons that I prefer hybrid solutions to the extreme versions (e.g. &quot;single-action&quot;, highly simplified side vs side, lots of actions divided into discrete categories) is what it does to action denial.&nbsp; If the actions are very tight, then action denial becomes inordinately valuable compared to the thing being modeled (however &quot;realistic&quot; or not).&nbsp; On the other side of the scale, you can get the opposite problem, but are more likely to get issues with particular spots being tight, and thus exploitable.&nbsp;Now, if the game is really more about the clever way you escape after getting conked on the head (losing all actions for an entire confict, effectively), then maybe really tight action economy and serious action denial is ok.&nbsp; But in that hypothetical game, I'd say if it is well designed, then combat is not the most important part of it.&nbsp; &nbsp;How often people fail when they get to act is inevitably tied into it, as well.&nbsp; People are a whole lot more willing to spend an occasional action moving if they can be otherwise effective with 85% of their attacks, than they are with 55% effectiveness.&nbsp;So regardless of ones' view of where the line goes on when &quot;losing a turn sucks,&quot; there is no doubt that drawing the line at any particular spot has substantial ramifications in the rest of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5741954, member: 54877"] One of the reasons that I prefer hybrid solutions to the extreme versions (e.g. "single-action", highly simplified side vs side, lots of actions divided into discrete categories) is what it does to action denial. If the actions are very tight, then action denial becomes [B]inordinately[/B] valuable compared to the thing being modeled (however "realistic" or not). On the other side of the scale, you can get the opposite problem, but are more likely to get issues with particular spots being tight, and thus exploitable. Now, if the game is really more about the clever way you escape after getting conked on the head (losing all actions for an entire confict, effectively), then maybe really tight action economy and serious action denial is ok. But in that hypothetical game, I'd say if it is well designed, then combat is not the most important part of it. How often people fail when they get to act is inevitably tied into it, as well. People are a whole lot more willing to spend an occasional action moving if they can be otherwise effective with 85% of their attacks, than they are with 55% effectiveness. So regardless of ones' view of where the line goes on when "losing a turn sucks," there is no doubt that drawing the line at any particular spot has substantial ramifications in the rest of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification