Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alexander Kalinowski" data-source="post: 7556011" data-attributes="member: 6931283">So the solution I have come up with is that you need to do a fighting test before you can attack unless you're the main attacker (which can change!). This is kinda less ideal in some regards - because of the potential frustration factor and because of the added rolling. On the other hand it does create turns in which only 1 attacker can attack and turns in which all can attack. Also, and thisa is crucial to me, the added roll allows the GM to avoid saying "You attack and you miss". If you fail your your fighting test, the GM can narrate (as dictated by the dice): "You step forward but your buddy Billy Bob Joe blocks your path."I like the Coordinated/Uncoordinated approach mentioned earlier in the thread but the greater simplicity comes at a price in accuracy. Something as elegant as that with the accuracy of my method would be ideal. Not sure that's even possible.Oh, and totally agree about Minions/Mooks. But unless you run them as single horde entity, you still need some mechanic to prevent round-robin attacks.I don't disagree with you entirely. I just would like to point out Hârnmaster to you, where with each successful hit you roll up hit location and hit effects like fumble, shock, amputation, etc. So this is immediately more palpable, more visual. But then again it comes a price in complexity or at least in resolution speed. I guess for those of us who want cinematic trad games - we're looking for that (individual!) sweet spot where complexity/speed is manageable but at the same time, we're having these evocative dice mechanics that tell us in some detail what happened. Here's where we diverge: part of adventuring is personal assessment of a situation and facing the odds. I want to have an udnerstanding of what my character is capable of in the next 5 seconds, care to take a GUESS what that orc probably can do and then make a choice about the next course of action. I want to know if I can fire 1 or 2 arrows in 6 seconds and the make the calculation of wether to go for it or turn around an flee. I want to take a guess if the wolf can cover the 20m distance between us in the next round.What I don't want is the feeling of fighting a statblock, be it a D&D statblock or a statblock with a narrative dressing. When I fight a dragon, I want to leave the combat with the impression of "That's roughly what it's like to fight a dragon (for a character like Conan)". I want to face the odds. Some of us want fiction and mechanics tightly coupled.I don't care about fiction altering. I want to be on the battlefield, prone to the same limitations (or reasonably close) in mechanics as my PC as in the fiction, facing an enemy with likewise corresponding mechanics. The simulation does have a lure. Up to a point, of course.I hope you understand that there might be gamers who are as dissatisfied by that notion as you might be by the notion of an attempt at cinematic combat in D&D. I don't want just the decision points. I want the overall odds. What's the difference between shooting at a moving and standing target? How does it affect the odds?</blockquote>

Verification