Re: Studying an opponent and Omega Strikes

On 9 Mar 2007 07:00:13 -0800, "Will in New Haven"
<bill.reich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Mar 8, 9:12 pm, Erol K. Bayburt <Ero...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 8 Mar 2007 06:39:57 -0800, "Will in New Haven"
>>
>> <bill.re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >I like real-world tactics or tactics that can at least allow my WSoD
>> >to survive. Saving your best attack for last, much like using your own
>> >frail body to find out if the fight is too tough, would make me feel
>> >like I was playing a person with a death-wish.
>>
>> Mileage varies widely on what sup****ts or attacks a WSoD.
>
>When you ask for people to give their opinions, you get their
>opinions. Since I have been playing, running and designing "gets
>harder to hit," as opposed to "gets more Hit Points" for twenty years,
>I figured I'd give mine. Of COURSE, mileage varies but one of the
>reasons people I play with seem to like ghth better than gmhp is that
>it is easier to visualize what the character is doing.

OK, I appologize. I misread your comment as implying that the goal I
was seeking was a Bad goal and that I shouldn't seek it. 

FWIW, I've been using both ghth and gmhp systems over the past
twenty-mumble years. Both have virtues and faults, from my POV. Which
is preferable depends on what the rest of the game mechanics are like,
and on the particular tweeks of the particular ghth or gmhp system. 

>
>Given your stated preferences, I think you should stick with "gets
>more hit points." It's not like this is a wrong approach. There are no
>wrong approaches. However, your desire for disconnect with real-world
>tactics and seeming (because it isn't really) simulationist approaches
>would seem to fit it better.

It sounds here like you don't understand what I mean by
"simulationist." What do *you* mean by "simulationist" that gives rise
to your parathentical "because it isn't really" wrt my approch?


-- 
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]