gamists want to engage with the mechanics of the game, so exposing them allows them to min/max more, percentage change for anything to happen is just a dice roll, 95% is not any more or less in your face than "roll 4 or better with 2d6"; cards reflect the uncertainty of the situation, etc.
simulationists just want the game to be one very complex sandbox macine organism thing that has internally consistent rules and can make cool things happen by them messing with the simulation
narrativist people are interested in a game as a conveyance to tell a story, while simulations are great, and computing what the best decision at any point is fine; they'd rather make choices that make their playthrough be an interesting story from start to end
of course, none of this matters, because these distinctions were made by pnprpg losers, which are not real games, also rpgs are not real videogames because they're just digitalized versions of that, the only good game is Bad Rats 2 and we've been going downhill ever since
I will concede, I can't tell you what you think is in your face or not and trying to do so has detracted from my original point. I have played a lot of games involving dice and when I read "95%" i literally think 2d10, because that's what it is. As for showing you the roll, XCOM has a problem with people yelling bullshit when they miss a 95% chance shot. Behavioural studies indicate that showing people the number they actually rolled will usually make them shut up and not be little shits about it. In this case, XCOM fails badly on this metric, with a whole cottage industry of people theorizing that the XCOM RNG is stacked either for or against them when they do well or poorly in a game, when the banal reality is, they're all random independent rolls.
edit: I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong for your beliefs, I'm trying to communicate why it seems like a bunch of other people are fine with it
gamists want to engage with the mechanics of the game, so exposing them allows them to min/max more, percentage change for anything to happen is just a dice roll, 95% is not any more or less in your face than "roll 4 or better with 2d6"; cards reflect the uncertainty of the situation, etc.
simulationists just want the game to be one very complex sandbox macine organism thing that has internally consistent rules and can make cool things happen by them messing with the simulation
narrativist people are interested in a game as a conveyance to tell a story, while simulations are great, and computing what the best decision at any point is fine; they'd rather make choices that make their playthrough be an interesting story from start to end
of course, none of this matters, because these distinctions were made by pnprpg losers, which are not real games, also rpgs are not real videogames because they're just digitalized versions of that, the only good game is Bad Rats 2 and we've been going downhill ever since
deleted by creator
Lots of people do.
I will concede, I can't tell you what you think is in your face or not and trying to do so has detracted from my original point. I have played a lot of games involving dice and when I read "95%" i literally think 2d10, because that's what it is. As for showing you the roll, XCOM has a problem with people yelling bullshit when they miss a 95% chance shot. Behavioural studies indicate that showing people the number they actually rolled will usually make them shut up and not be little shits about it. In this case, XCOM fails badly on this metric, with a whole cottage industry of people theorizing that the XCOM RNG is stacked either for or against them when they do well or poorly in a game, when the banal reality is, they're all random independent rolls.
edit: I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong for your beliefs, I'm trying to communicate why it seems like a bunch of other people are fine with it
:sicko-hexbear: