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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3758777" data-attributes="member: 18280">And, as I said, that was the best point (IMHO) raised in that regard so far.However, I would say that chess is tactically interesting only because both sides are trying to win.  Playing chess against someone who has no chance of beating you is boring; playing chess against someone who you have no chance of beating is equally boring (though perhaps more instructional).  In order to be interesting, each chess game must be an all-or-nothing affair where the outcome cannot be predicted in advance.This jibes, IMHO, exactly with the problem Celebrim and Gizmo33 are describing with the "per encounter" model.RCEDIT:  Also, it should be noted that if the game has "per encounter" tactics (as all rpgs must) and also has operational tactics, perforce it must have more tactics than a game that just has "per encounter" tactics, unless there is a significant difference in the level of the "per encounter" tactics between the two games.Using the chess example, if you played a series of three games of chess, and each pawn that you lost in the first two games was not replenished, but you needed to win the game to move on, the loss of pawns in those games would be more serious, and would perforce require more tactical considerations than three unrelated games of chess in a row.Even in the case of Yahoo! Games, where winning at chess affects your ranking (so that ranking becomes a sort of metagame for some), it is easy to witness how the operational level affects tactics at the "per encounter" level -- some people abandon boards to attempt to force the other player to quit (thus winning), some people refuse to play against anyone who has a chance of winning, etc.  These are not generally things that happen when there are only "per encounter" rules in place.  The purpose of ranking (so that you can find someone close to your level in play) instead became a metagame reward system that effectively subverts the original purpose.  It is my fear that 4e, like 3e, will have these same sorts of problems.RC</blockquote>

Verification