NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 7996903" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Again, reduction to the absurd. Mr. Pulsipher, you really need to think through your editorial comments better, because if they are in fact reflective of your thought processes, then you're not seeing the obvious in front of you. And if they aren't reflective, well, then dumbing them down is not a service.Fairness in RPG combat is artifice, but it's not illusory. There are several kinds...There is the "Fair Encounters reduce X resources" mode of almost all editions of D&D.There is the "Even odds" mode of some other games, where PCs and NPCs of similar rating are of similar threat, as in Dragon Warriors. If the party meets a party of same rank-equivalent, it's abut 50-50 odds.There's the "should be able to complete in X turns" approach of Sentinel Comics... it's "balanced" encounters are suitably set for genre emulation.  Actual defeat of the major foes is under 50%... they have minions and lieutenants to prevent their being killed or captured. Stopping their current plan, however... well, let's just say, of the hard scenes, less than 50% were successes in stopping the plan, either.There is the "no difference in rules" approach of Traveller, Runequest, and many others. It's an entirely different level of fair. And I've had many a campaign cut short because players assumed that the odds were tilted towards them... in greivous error.Excepting that first type, no one wants a fair fight.That's also different from a "Balanced Encounter" as laid out in D&D 3E, 4E, and 5E... which is a specific subset of the resources spend. A 5E encounter of hard isn't so much "players will have a hard time winning" as "players will have a hard time winning without notable costs." Fairness in RPG combat is many different things.Now, the odds in combat are one element - and the "balance" is most keenly desireable there.Your example of tournament play of team sports is, however, unsubtle and almost misleading. RPG combats are not "Win or Lose." And this is this week's element handled poorly, apparently not thought through in your editorial. RPG combats have, at the very least, three axises of result:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Achieve the goal of combat or not, or even partially</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Expend all, most, some, a few, or no resources. (damage, ammo, exhaustion, minions)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Player satisfaction with the way it plays out. (noting that Satisfaction may not be enjoyment in the immediate scene, but can result from eventual overcoming of the issues the character faced in scene.)</li> </ol>I've seen cases where player satisfaction was lowered because of success without costs... anticlimactic combat isn't fun for everyone, especially not me.I've also had sessions which players labeled "Not fun, but really, a great story came out of it"...Knowing the odds going in also can reduce player satisfaction... which is why the 3E, 4E, and 5E D&D DMG's various methods of "balanced" encounters don't encourage telling players what difficulty level the encounter was set at.</blockquote>

Verification