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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5701700" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Alrighty <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Similar how I use my game. I basically have an offensive attack roll opposed by the defenders attack. You effectively have the same thing, but have the static roll (you're assuming the defender always rolls a 10). So, I like that.I also use armor as damage reduction in my game (though it gets a bonus against ranged attacks in my game). So, I like your implementation.I like gritty. I find it fun. So, it appeals to me (I made my game much grittier than D&D is). I'm also for someone with a less damaging weapons not damaging highly armored opponents unless they bypass the armor (via a called shot, or some other mechanic). I implemented these concepts into my game (including called shots to bypass damage reduction).So, I like most of what you're written. People's tastes are going to vary, and I'm not sure how many like gritty games, to be honest. I really do. Your system looks simple, fast, and probably quick-paced, and fast combats probably means it's decided one way or the other faster (making it more swingy or gritty). I think it fits the feel of the game well, but I'm biased because I see similarities to my approach, even conceptually. You've done well to cater to my base tastes <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification