|
Perhaps this is personal preference speaking now, but I don't particularly like the idea of a combat system functioning under rules similar to poker rules. While there is surely skill in poker, a large part of it is trying to stack probability in your favor and then depending on chance. If one player is significantly more skilled than another, I feel that that player should win consistently until the other works up to the his/her level. Losing because you got a proverbial 'bad hand' would cheapen the experience, for me at least. It's possible that this is down to personal preference, of course.
I'll use the chess analogy to demonstrate what I mean. The 'best' opening in chess is the one that is most in line with your strategy. The 'best' move in chess is the one that moves you further to your goal in a long and complex, dynamic sequence that changes along with your opponent's moves. I don't think chess would be a good game if every time you managed to maneuvre your pieces in a strategical way, you had to roll to see if you actually get to take the opponent's piece - that lowers the value of strategic thinking and instead takes too much control out of the player's hands.
I'm saying that so long as you have a 'best' target, the number of targets doesn't matter. Multiple targets don't innately cause more complexity, they only do so if the choice of target flexible instead of linear, which isn't implied automatically.
|