It comes with a handful of problems as well.
My personal feeling is that every action taken in a game that
can have a meaningful impact on the game or that events outcome, should be
handled by an opposed roll. I think this brings a degree of graphic participation
into the game that might otherwise not be there. The easiest example would be
in combat. Shouldn’t the person being hit make some type of roll to react or
act? Like wise with thieving, spell casting, outpacing a predator. Sometimes it
seems as if player’s characters are passive participants in the action, unable to
act but just react.
I know this is not always the case and experiences vary.
There are also mechanical issues with opposed rolls. I won’t bore you with the details, but it seems those games that have tried this mechanic are not very popular, well, not as popular The Game. So mechanical issues aside, it seems that there is something more psychological going on. Could it be too much dice rolling (something I find difficult to believe), to much chance, or just too complicated for the purposes the game being played? It’s the latter I believe. It is just a layer of graininess that is unnecessary and thereby lacking that gravitational play.
But what do I know?
I know this, I know that Steve wants me to design a newish
game. A game that is more in line with how I envision my campaign setting being
played. If I get around to it (and that’s a big if), I will be using an opposed
roll system. Yuppers, going to do that without telling Steve. I will name it Blood Cudgel or Cudgel of Blood, maybe Blood Harvest or Harvest of Blood….
Maybe Bloody Harvest of Blood Cudgels. Maybe I will work on the name before I
work on the mechanic.
No comments:
Post a Comment