Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7483033" data-attributes="member: 29398">There's micro-failure e.g. you blow your open-locks roll and the door stays locked, and macro-failure e.g. you set out to rescue the kidnapped princess but instead manage to kill her by mistake.I have no problem with either type of failure.&nbsp; Stuff happens.Some, like you, don't like macro-failure; and I can see where that's coming from if you're looking to tell a continuous story and the players are cool with it.Some, however, can't even handle micro-failure; which is why we're seeing things like fail-forward (which in agreement with [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] I see as a faulty term) creep into the lexicon.&nbsp; 'Nuff said.These are both examples of what I'm calling micro-fail.&nbsp; A macro-fail would be if the failure to find my lawn trap resulted in a full-on TPK, leading to mission failure.I still think you're being a bit harsh on the &quot;suffer boredom&quot; side, in that you're assuming the only thing that interests a player is what her own PC does and-or whether it succeeds.&nbsp; In theory a player doesn't &quot;switch off&quot; when it's not her turn; and though in practice far too many in fact do just this that's on those players to fix, not the game designers.Now here I disagree; as I tend to use the terms the other way around.&nbsp; Min-maxing is simple stuff like putting your best stat in strength when rolling up a fighter.&nbsp; Optimizing I see as the extreme and highly objectionable sort of activity that gets people thrown out of respectable clubs.Given that a main focus - maybe even the main focus - of 4e design was character balance, this should come as no great surprise.Lan-&quot;18d6 - hell, no problem - that's an average of 63 points o' damage; a mere wake-up call for a 100 h.p. tank like you&quot;-efan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7483033, member: 29398"] There's micro-failure e.g. you blow your open-locks roll and the door stays locked, and macro-failure e.g. you set out to rescue the kidnapped princess but instead manage to kill her by mistake. I have no problem with either type of failure. Stuff happens. Some, like you, don't like macro-failure; and I can see where that's coming from if you're looking to tell a continuous story and the players are cool with it. Some, however, can't even handle micro-failure; which is why we're seeing things like fail-forward (which in agreement with [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] I see as a faulty term) creep into the lexicon. 'Nuff said. These are both examples of what I'm calling micro-fail. A macro-fail would be if the failure to find my lawn trap resulted in a full-on TPK, leading to mission failure. I still think you're being a bit harsh on the "suffer boredom" side, in that you're assuming the only thing that interests a player is what her own PC does and-or whether it succeeds. In theory a player doesn't "switch off" when it's not her turn; and though in practice far too many in fact do just this that's on those players to fix, not the game designers. Now here I disagree; as I tend to use the terms the other way around. Min-maxing is simple stuff like putting your best stat in strength when rolling up a fighter. Optimizing I see as the extreme and highly objectionable sort of activity that gets people thrown out of respectable clubs. Given that a main focus - maybe even the main focus - of 4e design was character balance, this should come as no great surprise. Lan-"18d6 - hell, no problem - that's an average of 63 points o' damage; a mere wake-up call for a 100 h.p. tank like you"-efan [/QUOTE]

Verification