Feng Shui has a very simple basic conflict resolution system. You roll the dice and end up with a success number, higher being better. The side with the highest roll wins and does damage based on their strength, weapon damage, success margin, opponent's toughness, etc.
The game encourages the players to be creative in describing how they defeated their opponent - i.e. whether they ripped it's head off, paralysed it with a nerve pinch, threw it over the balcony, etc.
This works ok for a while, but eventualy it can get tedious. The problem is that the players are being reactive to the dice rolls. Soon you get the destinct feeling that you have little controll over the flow of the game, as few of the decisions you are making actualy affect the outcome.
Obviously there are ways to get round this, but it takes concious effort and skillfull staging by the referee. I must say I still enjoyed playing the game though.
Complex systems such as RQ encourage the player to think about what the character is doing and why. The game system is a puzzle, the solution of which directly affects the outcome of the combat.
Hero Wars has the biding mechanism, which means the players presumably have a much greater influence on the outcome that they would in feng Shui. At least that is my impression. Is this correct?
Does the bidding mechanism give the players a genuine sense of involvement in the action?
Does this translate well in situations other than combat?
Are the mechanics of bidding, using plot points, etc versatile and complex enough that optimising your chances of success in a given situation is non-trivial? (i.e. interesting)
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail