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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9760842" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Yeah, but the honest truth is that what being a bit disengaged means can vary considerably.  In simpler game systems without a lot of design twiddles or combat manuevers, combat can very much add up to "Pick your target, engage with them, roll your to hit and damage (and maybe a defense in some games)".  There's not a lot of meaningful decisions that need to be made there, and that isn't even always directly related to the complexity of the game (original RuneQuest was a significantly more complex game than OD&D (at least as long as you stayed out of the latter's spellcasting) but my description above describes both of them.  They had the same amount of engagement load for the most part.The problem is that for people who actually want to be involved in the tactical part of the game in a decision-making fashion, there's not that much to do with either.  RQ might give you a little more involvement because it wasn't as abstract, but the proper choice of weapons and target was about all there was there most of the time there, too (you could aim for locations but that wasn't regularly a good choice so it didn't come up, and that early version hadn't gotten into the sort of options you see in something like Mythras).But the truth is there are always going to be RPG players who find that "pick your target, roll to hit" thing all they want out of the combat system.  I'm just extremely cynical that even with a class system you can make a game that really suits both them and the people who want more tactical engagement at the same time.</blockquote>

Verification