Read on Twitter
Pondering:
Risk --> Uncertainty(roll) --> Hard Choice --> Outcome
is a sequence I am comfortable with, but
Risk --> Hard Choice ---> Roll ---> Outcome
makes me uncomfortable for reasons that it's hard to pin down.
Risk --> Uncertainty(roll) --> Hard Choice --> Outcome
is a sequence I am comfortable with, but
Risk --> Hard Choice ---> Roll ---> Outcome
makes me uncomfortable for reasons that it's hard to pin down.
I'm good with:
Risk --> Tactical Choice --> Roll --> Outcome
But that seems like a very different thing to me. If a choice is genuinely hard, I kind of want it to be the end point.
Risk --> Tactical Choice --> Roll --> Outcome
But that seems like a very different thing to me. If a choice is genuinely hard, I kind of want it to be the end point.
AH HA
Ok, there's also some loss aversion math here.
If the choice FOLLOWS the roll, then my outcome grid is:
Either positive or a 50% loss.
If the choice PRECEDES the roll, I am *guaranteed* a 50% loss, and am rolling to see if it goes to 0.
Ok, there's also some loss aversion math here.
If the choice FOLLOWS the roll, then my outcome grid is:
Either positive or a 50% loss.
If the choice PRECEDES the roll, I am *guaranteed* a 50% loss, and am rolling to see if it goes to 0.
In contrast, the tactical choice is not a *loss*, it's a OPTION. I am not necessarily worse off for choosing to go to cover than I am for rushing the enemy.
Loss aversion is a really serious gameplay element, and I think that's the heart of what's bugging me.
