Quote:
Originally Posted by badcat
The thing is, in a rpg you are looking for the feel of combat without necessarily getting every little nuance of combat style and function down pat and portrayed perfectly (at least for me). You don't need mechanics like opposed rolls and 'feats' to have a perfectly good, accurate feeling (as emulating your favorite movie or historical novel) and fun game.
|
Yes, this is why the core mechanic should be the simplest - and people can add options to suit their taste. So the deflection-type complications really ought
not to be built-in to the fundamental combat rolls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triff
Interesting idea, but I'm sceptical of introducing the mathematics of opposed rolls into combat, when I think the parry rules work well as it is.
|
Same here. Sadly, I think the Attack/Parry matrix
does have opposed roll type ideas built-in to it (although not the full-blown 'highest-roll-wins' garbage, at least not by default).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdavies2720
I've always played that on an opposed roll where both sides succeeded, they both, well. succeeded.
So, for instance if someone has a successful Search against a successful Hide, then both succeed: the person Hiding is hidden, but the searcher has found Something, maybe a footprint, maybe a broken branch.
I've always found that much more interesting than a win/lose outcome.
|
Exactly! You have hidden well, but the Creature has spotted something to make it suspicious, and is coming closer... and more hide/spot rolls (or other actions) are needed to resolve the matter. Opposed rolls smack of impatience ("I want a winner NOW!") and invite trivializing situations that may deserve more drama.