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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7633067">"Interesting" is a pretty vague adjective.  Mea culpa.I agree that some/many players find tactical combat interesting.  Far more interesting than non-tactical combat, right?  In other words, it's not the uncertainty of the dice rolls they like, it's the complexity of options, and the uncertainty of what the opponent will do.  The dice are only needed because a non-random system that encompassed all the possibilities in RPG combat would be...unwieldy.  (Think about Ace of Aces...that would make an awesome fantasy combat simulator, if it didn't run to tens of thousands of pages.)If you stripped out all options, and just allowed each combatant to roll their basic attack every round, combat would be considerably less fun.Likewise, where there is uncertainty in the resolution of non-combat challenges...e.g. the knight/maiden/heart scenario...I'd rather solve it without RNG.  This is why I referenced the discussions about challenging the player vs. challenging the character.  Apparently some people think that making the player roll to determine whether or not his heart is melted is "challenging the character", but I see it as just rolling dice.  Where the character would be feeling conflicted emotion, the player only feels anxiety about how the dice will fall.On the other hand, tempting the player with something desirable, even in a pure metagame sense, puts the player in an emotional state at least somewhat similar to the character's: "OMG what should I do?"  If a GM rolled dice, or even just simply dictated, my reaction, that just wouldn't be engaging to me.  It would make my character feel less like a character and more like a board game token.Note that I'm NOT saying that it wouldn't still be "roleplaying".  Just not the kind of roleplaying I have, so far, enjoyed the most.</blockquote>

Verification