Started by Alfryd, February 13, 2011, 04:05:16 PM
QuoteWe had two other melee characters, and two rangers, but their viable combat options were essentially limited to: roll to hit, pass/fail, roll for damage, over and over again. There were little or no actual tactical tradeoffs or decision-making to be made there- a calculator could have done the same thing with less hassle for everyone.
QuoteOf course, since the sewer entrance was the only way in without making an infeasibly roundabout detour, failure was not really an option- so when my character repeatedly failed his stealth tests, thereby alerting the guards, what should logically have called down a major shitstorm on our heads appears to have had no actual effect on events, so far as I could tell. I can understand the necessity after a fashion, but in that case, why have us roll dice in the first place?
QuoteOne other thing I noticed- though this may or may not have anything in particular to do with the system- was that one of the other players had this interesting habit of stopping at regular intervals- basically whenever a new stretch of corridor or floor of a building came in sight- and asking to make a perception check. It's possible this was some kind of 'defence mechanism' against nasty surprises, but I eventually came out and asked if we could just "assume we proceed along the route until we encounter some kind of problem", which the GM, again, was perfectly happy to do. Is this is a frequent habit among gamers, in your experience?
QuoteHooo boy! Because the dice are just deployed to fabricate a sense of tension based on the idea events are uncertain, when really the GM is utterly, utterly deciding them (and probably terrorfied of being a bad GM if he doesn't!). But c'mon, you knew that, right? Even as your seeing straight through the illusion?
QuoteAnd as to when a skill roll or such is called, that's fiat too.
Quotean arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it
Quote from: Callan S. on February 13, 2011, 08:46:13 PMOh, another idea to add a failure sting is like the idea above, but at round number X, the monsters sneak away a significant part of the treasure. That way you don't have the TPK problem from above, as the sting is simply missing out on phat loot/cash-o-la! Nooooo!
QuoteAnyway, did it seem like by and large you were going to win and it was just a matter of how much HP you'd lose? Which no doubt would be healed by a sleep at the inn or some friendly cleric anyway, so in win/lose terms, meaningless?
QuoteWell this all hinges on what sort of thing the GM is hanging out for. Imagine you said what you said, the GM nods and then a few corridors latter the GM goes "Ha, you didn't look around and a XXX wacks you!". Under the usual traditional RPG rules, that's valid GM stuff. Taking it as valid, well then the 'defensive' player would actually have been, gamism wise, right and you, gamism wise, wrong in your approach.On the other hand, trying to second guess the GM every few minutes gets pretty tiresome.
Quote from: Devon Oratz on February 14, 2011, 02:52:24 PMAs a GM, I decide events by fiat really, really, really sparingly. At the very least, if I do fudge at this point none of my players are going to expect it, because numerous times I've let PCs die anticlimactic, story breaking deaths because the dice say so...As a matter of fact, I deeply, deeply struggle with going against "what the dice say" sometimes as much as I hate how it impacts the story. I suppose you could call that hardline simulationism.
Quote...I try to adjust the story to roll with it though, and it usually leads to some very interesting twists and turns that are much more unpredictable than your standard Hollywood plotline, rather than just flat anticlimax and dissapointment.Speaking personally, I think I would have fucked your party without hesitation if you had REPEATEDLY failed stealth tests. It's certainly what I've done to my own players, time and time again. Of course, I generally run games where there is almost ALWAYS some resource the PCs can expend to survive such slip-ups.
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on February 15, 2011, 03:02:33 PMI also wanted to say something about the dice-rolling combat you criticize: it's true that traditional D&D-style combat doesn't really give you any combat options in the game mechanics, Dragon Age doesn't seem any different from pre-3rd edition D&D in that regard. However, this lack of options doesn't mean that the combat is pointless. There are at least two core values that make this type of combat system work very well for me personally...
QuoteAs I understand it, gamism is, to a large degree, about personal pride in tactical and strategic problem-solving
Quote from: Callan S. on February 16, 2011, 03:21:32 PMQuoteAs I understand it, gamism is, to a large degree, about personal pride in tactical and strategic problem-solvingWell, that's the myth. Gamism is about WINNING. If I can beat you by just pressing a single button, am I going to go and instead form some elaborate, multi turn strategy to beat you instead? Only if I was trying to simulate gamism. No, I'm gunna press the button, because gamism is about winning! Your right on the personal part, as in it's you winning and me losing, for example.
QuoteIt really comes down to people and that positioning. Although some people actually use such things to determine thier and others real life pecking order, which just gets stupid and basically unfun.Lately I've been thinking along the lines of how rolling multiple times for a win that you could have just rolled once for, is pretty pointless. So I was thinking of a mechanic where you can roll once, but you have slightly lower odds of winning than if you roll multiple times, ie, play out the battle.
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on February 16, 2011, 03:45:04 PMAs for gamism vs. luck, what Callan said - it's not a given that everybody would or should enjoy the hand of fate as a primary director of play, but there definitely are many very functional gamism-supporting roleplaying games that are dominantly fortune-based. The uncertainty before the moment of truth and the opportunity to embellish the results in the fiction are fun, and so is the decision to dare that the player gets to make when he announces that his character is going to do something, anything, that might cause the GM to call for a saving roll. The paralyzed hesitation of players who know that the wrong move will likely be a cause of death, and the brave risk-taking when somebody dares to grab the dice, all of that is very playable and very common in a certain sort of game.
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on February 16, 2011, 04:55:28 PMMorgan, I think I'll have to write up a bit of actual play description to address the issue of fortune-based gamism properly. I'll try to get to it later this week, for now it suffices to say that tactical randomness does not translate into strategic randomness - your combat system can be random without your entire game being so, and it is definitely feasible for your game's tactical realm to mostly involve luck and daring as the main components of success. I'll demonstrate what this means with a report of a gamist game with random combat (Tunnels & Trolls) when I have the time to write it up; I played a suitable example session last month.
QuoteDevon, if it really is a social faux pas to point out a possible mistake in someone elses estimation, I predict a dire future. I can only think that you believe I'm aiming some moral accusation at you and that's what you don't like. I'm not, I'm describing the mechanical process involved (as I estimate, which itself could be wrong, in practical terms (rather than in some social terms)).