Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by coxcomb, May 24, 2004, 09:34:57 PM
Quote from: NoonPlease, Eero Tuovinen, don't go the whole 'stupid' route.
QuoteThe thing is, your tactics with it are forward loaded. You make the descisions before you get there. For example, I think there are a few spells that get you out of being held which might be embedded in a ring or something you can use. Or you might have memorised a silenced spell spell so you could cast it without speaking which would get you out of it (or just provide some sort of offence/defence).
QuoteI think your problem is that you don't enjoy gamism enough to enjoy this. You see, in dragonquest anyone can hit you with a weapon and stun you. This gamism sucked for me (the only gamism is avoid going into melee to begin with or other pretty dull stuff). But for me, the forward loaded options, the limmit on who can do hold and that once they do it they've used up a resource, etc made it fit within my gamism pleasure zone.
Quote from: Eero TuovinenThe problem is, it's still gambling as far as the players are concerned. It's the GM who decides whether the players will have any resource that counters a given spell, after all, and if the players get hold of such, it's a no-brainer to apply it.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsBut for Jay (coxcomb, you're Jay, right?), does all of this put your observation into perspective? You guys were playing a one-off game, so long-term strategy wasn't relevant, and generally, I think, the whole concept of risk-per-reward was also diminished because the most explicit reward system (levelling up) was irrelevant too. Hence the saving-roll becomes, essentially, abusive - not a chance to escape sudden death, but a chance for sudden death.