Quote:
Originally Posted by twidget658  I do not mean, nor even think, that they will never lose or that they never get in over their heads and that winning is certain. That is an extreme and an exaggeration. However, there is a time in almost every battle where the thought of retreating crosses your mind. This is usually when you are badly hurt, but still capable. If the game over emphasizes wounded conditions, then that moment will have to be sooner in the battle. Thus, removing some very good challenges.
Lets not get into far left, far right by saying that, "Always having an out means never losing, and losing is as important to building a character (rather than just a pile of numbers) as winning." Always and never are ridiculously unrealistic. |
I was responding to what you wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by twidget658 We do want people to run around, adventure, explore AND have fun without having to worry about getting in over their heads and not having a chance to get out of it, right? |
If players are able to do all those things
without having to worry about getting in over their heads and not having a chance to get out of it, then they do indeed never lose. Players and characters
should have to worry about getting in over their heads and potentially being unable to escape - that, in fact,
is part of the fun. I agree that absolute statements are unrealistic, but I don't think my explicit statement was any more or less absolute or unrealistic than your implicit one. That may not be what you meant, but that's what it appears to say.
Also, I disagree that changing the nature of when wounds and stamina begin to affect combat removes any challenges. I think it affects combat, certainly, potentially shortening fights. Including a system that makes stamina and wounds affect combat potential doesn't remove or eliminate the point when characters consider fleeing or remove the challenges of late-stage combat. I would argue it could potentially increase the challenge, since there would be more to overcome to emerge victorious. And I still say that the highest level of Harlas's suggestion, a 10% reduction, would not be a huge factor. It would be enough to notice without making characters practically useless and incapable of useful actions, and the lower levels of effect (3% or 6%) would be the time to make the decision to run or stay.
I'm not really a super-advocate for the system. If I were, I would have countered the adrenaline explanation with the idea that characters who regularly engage in combat should have increased susceptibility to poison and disease, increased overall immune system problems, and ought to have a chance of heart failure, since that's what long term adrenaline and noradrenaline exposure can lead to. But I'm not. I don't think it's that complicated or important. I just think Harlas had a nice idea that could potentially add something and be a different sort of experience, and I think equating changes and/or consequences to an automatic drop in fun is silly. Maybe that's just me.