I think? Anyway, today my mind wanders to optimal number of times to roll to resolve a conflict. The current standard is three; initiative, to hit and damage. Three rolls. The INT roll is being slowly driven out. Several systems do not use it and few roll each round anymore - we do.
But what should it be? Where is the fun factor supplanted by the labor factor? I think I would like all rolls boiled into one. Initiative, to hit and damage all as one roll so that the combat 'round' is done and over with quickly. This would keep the action oriented nature of a S&S setting/themed game up on the high. There would be no pausing and assessing and looking up crap.
That would only work if all the crunching could be worked in to that one roll. I am still left with the lingering question of, would that be a fun and exciting manner to run a combat?
So, my off the cuff thinking on that is that weapon damage would have to be fairly static and any variation in damage dependent upon the one roll. The same would have to apply for a 'speed' factor to determine who - if anyone - swings first. One could just roll the whole round into one event whereby everyone swings at the same time (or two opponents).
There would be one roll - a combat roll. All things would derive from that. That would be difficult. I think though, a 1 roll system would keep the action to the forefront.
In any respect, my real question is: where does the fun/enjoyment factor end/begin. 1-2-3-4-5 rolls. The more rolls one has the more tactical depth one can generate it would seem. However, chess only allows one move (one roll) per round and its tactical depth is staggering. So tactical depth could come from other options that effect the one roll.
I guess though, all in all most people prefer at least a 2 roll system; to hit and damage. Though I am not positive.
And this optimal number of rolls begs the question as to the optimal number of die types. I will banter that about tomorrow.
Davis
But what should it be? Where is the fun factor supplanted by the labor factor? I think I would like all rolls boiled into one. Initiative, to hit and damage all as one roll so that the combat 'round' is done and over with quickly. This would keep the action oriented nature of a S&S setting/themed game up on the high. There would be no pausing and assessing and looking up crap.
That would only work if all the crunching could be worked in to that one roll. I am still left with the lingering question of, would that be a fun and exciting manner to run a combat?
So, my off the cuff thinking on that is that weapon damage would have to be fairly static and any variation in damage dependent upon the one roll. The same would have to apply for a 'speed' factor to determine who - if anyone - swings first. One could just roll the whole round into one event whereby everyone swings at the same time (or two opponents).
There would be one roll - a combat roll. All things would derive from that. That would be difficult. I think though, a 1 roll system would keep the action to the forefront.
In any respect, my real question is: where does the fun/enjoyment factor end/begin. 1-2-3-4-5 rolls. The more rolls one has the more tactical depth one can generate it would seem. However, chess only allows one move (one roll) per round and its tactical depth is staggering. So tactical depth could come from other options that effect the one roll.
I guess though, all in all most people prefer at least a 2 roll system; to hit and damage. Though I am not positive.
And this optimal number of rolls begs the question as to the optimal number of die types. I will banter that about tomorrow.
Davis
No comments:
Post a Comment