Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 5039255" data-attributes="member: 94">That's a good jumping off point for me to summarize my earlier point:1) Our first design goal is a mechanic that distributes success and failure across multiple checks. 2) The success or failure of any individual check is going to be weighted in favor of the player somewhere between 50-70%. (This keeps the chicken engaged in pecking for the pellet.)3) Tension is maintained because the ultimate success or failure is iterated across multiple checks and kept in doubt until an unknown number of checks are completed.4) But most importantly, as Elder-Basilisk notes, each of those iterative checks must include a depth of complexity and meaningful player choices (even if only seemingly meaningful).SIDEBAR: Although it's not a roleplaying game, I heartily recommend <a href="http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6795/battleball" target="_blank">BattleBall</a>. It uses the panoply of polyhedrons (d6 through d20), including a really cool football-shaped d6! The bigger players (linemen) use lower dice (d6s), and the faster players (receivers) use progressively higher dice (d20s). The trick is that you want to roll high for movement and catching the football, and roll low for winning tackles. I love the mechanic!At the game mechanics level, they can be made perfectly analogous in terms of complexity. It's only your diction that introduces a seeming disparity. For example, I could successfully argue that human psychology and biomechanics are more complex than blowing fire out the ass end of a tin can.I'm saying that there are certain design choices successfully modeled in iterative check combat resolution systems that can be ported over successfully to any other activity that takes place over a span of time and/or checks-- mechanically. The mechanics are easy, and well-proven at this point through countless RPG systems (pick any one); but where the best game designers shine these days is in making the thrust-and-parry of verbal combat or the high-speed jockeying of a NASCAR race every bit as interesting and engaging as combat. As for me personally, I don't have any interest in trying-- not just because it's quite possibly beyond my creative capacity, but also simply because I'm extremely content with D&D as a combat-centric RPG.</blockquote>

Verification