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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6265452" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's not very immersion-breaking to me personally, but I think the concern might be more one of gameplay than of verisimilitude, honestly. It does create a character who "never really misses," but in a game with dragons and wizards, a swordsman who never misses probably isn't beyond the pale for a lot of tables. It's kind of like auto-success on a skill check. It removes interesting variety. Now every failure is at least a minor success. It's not a "fun" rule. It's a "participation medal" rule, where everyone gets a trophy for showing up.Emotional extremes are fun. They're part of WHY gameplay is so engaging. The thrill of failure AND the agony of defeat are both things you're signing up for when you play a game (this is one of the ways that it's demonstrably different than storytelling). Sure, you get angry when your big attack misses, but expressing that anger is part of the fun of gameplay, too. It's the fun that comes from dying -- over and over again -- in I Want To Be The Guy. Or Flappy Bird. It's "hard fun.""Thanks for playing, here's some pity damage" blows that kind of fun out of the water. It's not only less fun to succeed (because that other guy doesn't have to), it's also less fun to fail (because you don't get to laugh and groan and blame the dice). Anger is as much a release as joy, and a good game design should, IMO, embrace that. Failure should be fun. Damage on a miss isn't really fun failure.</blockquote>

Verification