Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8954739" data-attributes="member: 177">Well, note that the focus here is on &quot;win/loss&quot;.&nbsp; At the moment, we are focused on whether the PC &quot;wins&quot;, without recognizing that winning and losing are not the only possible outcomes of a conflict.&nbsp; Yes, the bad guy is down, flat out on the pavement - the PC won the fight.&nbsp; But what else happened?&nbsp; Did the hero take wounds that will impact them later?&nbsp; How far did the timer on the bomb set to destroy the Statue of Liberty tick down?&nbsp; And so on.Yep.&nbsp; I expect this is a fairly common experience.&nbsp; Well, there is the old point of, &quot;if it ain't broke, don't fix it.&quot;&nbsp; There's probably lots of folks who are well-entertained by having fights be a series of individual tactical scenarios, the real consequences of which are limited to resource depletion.&nbsp; There is nothing wrong with that kind of play - indeed, it has a simplicity that makes it easy to engage with, such that it probably ought to be present in the toolbox for most games.But, let us say there's some dissatisfaction at the table - what resources are available?&nbsp; Excellent question.&nbsp; To be honest, I can't think of any sizable works that take this as their primary subject matter.&nbsp; So, we are left looking at various sources from which we can glean tidbits.I'm not a big follower of the guy, but I kind of expect Matt Coville is apt to touch on this kind of thing now and again in his various advice videos.&nbsp; Monte Cook wrote/edited a book called Your Best Game Ever, which isn't primarily focused on combat, but many of the precepts and suggestions in it are applicable to combat.You can also look to the designs of games in which death is rare, never happens, or only happens by specific choice to see what they do when the shift the focus away from that very basic form of win/loss.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8954739, member: 177"] Well, note that the focus here is on "win/loss". At the moment, we are focused on whether the PC "wins", without recognizing that winning and losing are not the only possible outcomes of a conflict. Yes, the bad guy is down, flat out on the pavement - the PC won the fight. But [I]what else[/I] happened? Did the hero take wounds that will impact them later? How far did the timer on the bomb set to destroy the Statue of Liberty tick down? And so on. Yep. I expect this is a fairly common experience. Well, there is the old point of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." There's probably lots of folks who are well-entertained by having fights be a series of individual tactical scenarios, the real consequences of which are limited to resource depletion. There is nothing wrong with that kind of play - indeed, it has a simplicity that makes it easy to engage with, such that it probably ought to be present in the toolbox for most games. But, let us say there's some dissatisfaction at the table - what resources are available? Excellent question. To be honest, I can't think of any sizable works that take this as their primary subject matter. So, we are left looking at various sources from which we can glean tidbits. I'm not a big follower of the guy, but I kind of expect Matt Coville is apt to touch on this kind of thing now and again in his various advice videos. Monte Cook wrote/edited a book called [I]Your Best Game Ever[/I], which isn't primarily focused on combat, but many of the precepts and suggestions in it are applicable to combat. You can also look to the designs of games in which death is rare, never happens, or only happens by specific choice to see what they do when the shift the focus away from that very basic form of win/loss. [/QUOTE]

Verification