Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hairfoot" data-source="post: 2845536" data-attributes="member: 23732">Okay, those are good points.I'm clearly approaching it more from a wargame point of view, but I still think that the threat of loss is what makes a game fun.&nbsp; I can't accept that D&amp;D (or any RPG) is worthwhile (as written) when the players are assured that they will get everything they want.Roleplaying is a skill in itself, and can be done well or poorly, but D&amp;D revolves around violent acts of heroism.&nbsp; If the elements of chance and bad decision are removed when the characters interact with the campaign world physically, it becomes an expensive - if enjoyable - exercise in fiction writing.Even if, as Firelance says, &quot;what sustains interest...is not [the] players' skills...but the simple fact that the outcome is uncertain&quot;, I cannot agree with the philosophy of games in which the outcome is uncertain, but irrelevant.&nbsp; So that, in FL's example of a game of snakes &amp; ladders, it doesn't actually matter what you roll because the DM (S&amp;LM?) changes the board to ensure you always land on a ladder.Personally, I like it when my PC avoids a trap or dodges a death blow because I chose a dull saving-throw feat over an exciting combat one, or used the statistical bonuses of cover and terrain to my advantage.&nbsp; It makes me feel clever.I wouldn't feel clever at all to know that my character could have taken the feat &quot;skill focus: profession&quot; six times over and spent every combat lying prostrate and weeping because it's in-character, and achieved exactly the same result.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hairfoot, post: 2845536, member: 23732"] Okay, those are good points. I'm clearly approaching it more from a wargame point of view, but I still think that the threat of loss is what makes a game fun. I can't accept that D&D (or any RPG) is worthwhile (as written) when the players are assured that they will get everything they want. Roleplaying is a skill in itself, and can be done well or poorly, but D&D revolves around violent acts of heroism. If the elements of chance and bad decision are removed when the characters interact with the campaign world physically, it becomes an expensive - if enjoyable - exercise in fiction writing. Even if, as Firelance says, "what sustains interest...is not [the] players' skills...but the simple fact that the outcome is uncertain", I cannot agree with the philosophy of games in which the outcome is uncertain, but irrelevant. So that, in FL's example of a game of snakes & ladders, it doesn't actually matter what you roll because the DM (S&LM?) changes the board to ensure you always land on a ladder. Personally, I like it when my PC avoids a trap or dodges a death blow because I chose a dull saving-throw feat over an exciting combat one, or used the statistical bonuses of cover and terrain to my advantage. It makes me feel clever. I wouldn't feel clever at all to know that my character could have taken the feat "skill focus: profession" six times over and spent every combat lying prostrate and weeping because it's in-character, and achieved exactly the same result. [/QUOTE]

Verification