Realistic Combat that's Simple(ish)

[Micah Sweet]

Because I think its somewhat of a good idea, but I do not accept its an all-or-nothing situation, which seems to be what you're demanding here.

It was presented as an all-or-nothing example. All I was doing was drawing conclusions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, but if you're not designing for what you enjoy, and you're not designing for an audience, what is this all about?

I'm discussing what I think serves the most players. That's what I usually do, and you know that by now but it seems to offend you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It was presented as an all-or-nothing example. All I was doing was drawing conclusions.

Given I and the other poster had an exchange specifically about how its rarely or never set up to be all-or-nothing when using metacurrancy, I find this at least a little bit of a hard sell.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm discussing what I think serves the most players. That's what I usually do, and you know that by now but it seems to offend you.

I just don't really understand it. Why talk so much about gaming preferences that aren't either yours or opposed to yours if you're not working on a product (free or paid) that is intended to cater to those with the preference you're supporting? What does popularity have to do with any of it outside of that? I mean I support your right to feel the way you do about this, but I don't really get it.

I've never seen anyone describing and supporting preferences they don't share this much. I'm not offended. I'm just confused.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given I and the other poster had an exchange specifically about how its rarely or never set up to be all-or-nothing when using metacurrancy, I find this at least a little bit of a hard sell.

As it was described, I read the example as "dying here would be a negative play experience". If that's the case, risking it seems odd. Just tell the players there's no chance of death.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I just don't really understand it. Why talk so much about gaming preferences that aren't either yours or opposed to yours if you're not working on a product (free or paid) that is intended to cater to those with the preference you're supporting? What does popularity have to do with any of it outside of that? I mean I support your right to feel the way you do about this, but I don't really get it.

I've never seen anyone describing and supporting preferences they don't share this much. I'm not offended. I'm just confused.

Sometimes they are mine. But I don't see much point in talking about ones that are idiosyncratic to me and not shared by a fair number of people. What's there to say to me? "That's nice"? I'd rather talk about ones that have some common community so there's something to say, even if they aren't exactly my own.

Even ones I actively dislike I'll sometimes defend because I understand the position of those who do, and I think other people are being overly dismissive. I understand, at least to some degree, what PbtA fans get out of those games, even though for various reasons I think they'd be a very poor match with me and the people I play with.

Frankly I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As it was described, I read the example as "dying here would be a negative play experience". If that's the case, risking it seems odd. Just tell the players there's no chance of death.

There are plenty of game elements that can be negative experiences, but the price of avoiding them completely is also a negative. Sometimes you have trade-offs, and getting the trade-offs right in degree matters. Taking death completely off the table or making it only voluntary eliminates certain kinds of concern and drama; making it too easy to happen too trivially makes it lose much of its bite while simultaneously discouraging close connection with characters. Those are two undesirable extremes.

 

[rmcoen]

No, actually, @rmcoen did. I just agreed that its an unfortunate situation a lot of players dislike.

The thing is, that can describe any number of things in games that are the consequence of otherwise valuable elements of them, too. Wanting less of something is simply not the same as wanting none of it. Salt is good on a lot of food. Too much of it is not good, so managing the amount is worthwhile. And different people want or tolerate different amounts.

lol, yep, that was me. It would have been very unfortunate, but I wouldn't have prevented character death. They knew when they entered the situation it was risky and mostly "succeed or die" (story, Macguffins spent, dome of death, etc.). See also comment about "Fate Points" and "not pulling punches"! Choices have consequences.

 

[Micah Sweet]

lol, yep, that was me. It would have been very unfortunate, but I wouldn't have prevented character death. They knew when they entered the situation it was risky and mostly "succeed or die" (story, Macguffins spent, dome of death, etc.). See also comment about "Fate Points" and "not pulling punches"! Choices have consequences.

Fair enough. I assumed death was not acceptable because there was no way to plausibly bring in a new PC, based on your comments from before.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough. I assumed death was not acceptable because there was no way to plausibly bring in a new PC, based on your comments from before.

See, this is how all-or-nothing leads you wrong.