Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GSHamster" data-source="post: 5966881" data-attributes="member: 20187">Discrete actions allow the actions to be &quot;de-coupled&quot; from each other. A player doesn't necessarily have to respond to a complication, she can do something else entirely. As well, the DM's complication doesn't need to respond the player's action. In my example, the DM pretty much ignored the hunting for food, and took the scene down a different path. Similarly a player might have ignored the poison, and started a fire for warmth.As well, what I was trying to get at is that failing an action in combat doesn't necessarily put the other side closer to winning. It just stops you from getting ahead. It may be a small difference, but I think it's important to the psychology of playing.Alternating actions also matches the &quot;rhythm&quot; of combat, and that is something that every player is used to.As well, there are more knobs to turn in a decoupled system. For example, a DM could skip a turn, then unleash a complication which affects two people simultaneously. Or someone could attempt a high-risk, high-reward tactic that gives 2 successes. I think one generally has more room to manoeuvre when actions are discrete.Finally, while in theory I'm okay with rolling for an element without agency, in practice I find it kind of weird. And I think a large portion of the audience has the same hangup.It's like if a PC attempts to swim across a fast-moving river, in theory making a roll for the river can represent the PC getting caught in the current, or dashed on a rock. But in practice, I just find the notion of rolling for the river, an element without agency, to be a step too far. I'd rather just have the PC roll a save.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GSHamster, post: 5966881, member: 20187"] Discrete actions allow the actions to be "de-coupled" from each other. A player doesn't necessarily have to respond to a complication, she can do something else entirely. As well, the DM's complication doesn't need to respond the player's action. In my example, the DM pretty much ignored the hunting for food, and took the scene down a different path. Similarly a player might have ignored the poison, and started a fire for warmth. As well, what I was trying to get at is that failing an action in combat doesn't necessarily put the other side closer to winning. It just stops you from getting ahead. It may be a small difference, but I think it's important to the psychology of playing. Alternating actions also matches the "rhythm" of combat, and that is something that every player is used to. As well, there are more knobs to turn in a decoupled system. For example, a DM could skip a turn, then unleash a complication which affects two people simultaneously. Or someone could attempt a high-risk, high-reward tactic that gives 2 successes. I think one generally has more room to manoeuvre when actions are discrete. Finally, while in theory I'm okay with rolling for an element without agency, in practice I find it kind of weird. And I think a large portion of the audience has the same hangup. It's like if a PC attempts to swim across a fast-moving river, in theory making a roll for the river can represent the PC getting caught in the current, or dashed on a rock. But in practice, I just find the notion of rolling for the river, an element without agency, to be a step too far. I'd rather just have the PC roll a save. [/QUOTE]

Verification