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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tigris" data-source="post: 9836096" data-attributes="member: 7043270">Its funny, I was thinkint the exact opposite as the person you replied to. This sounds like even more "need to sweet talk GM" as the one negative point. The "know thy terrain" and "know thy players" (the know the enemy a bit less), just sounds like "sweet talk and argue with the GM", which most RPGs have too much of it anyway.  So for me this needs absolute clear rules without GM fiat, else there is no tactical part of it.In General I think having rules on how to end combat without killing enemies is good. This can allow combat which is still tactical (aka not done in 2-3 turns by just bursting down) and still have combats not drag on longer than needed. So thats great.Killing the leader(s) to end combat is also something you see a lot of fiction, and is used as a mechanic in the RPG Computer game Resonance of Fate. And it allows to have broader variety in combat. Maybe I am understanding it wrong, but you need to have a superiority higher than enemy resolve to win a fight, but you can spend superiority? This sounds like a (potential) trap option then. You make combat harder/go longer by giving you a one time bonus to a roll. (It is of course fine, if you keep the maximum resovle + a bonus to a roll).What I think is a bit unecessarily complicated is: Why are these 2 ressources? Resolve is only needed in comparison to superiority. So why not just have this 1 "tag of war" type of ressource. If you reach lets say 5 superiority you win, and whenever enemies would gain resolve, the superiority is just 1 lower.</blockquote>

Verification