Ways to Roll Attributes - What's Your Preference?

[ZombieKidzRule]

I think this is in the right place, but maybe not. I currently am sprinting down another Rabbit Hole because, why not?

I decided that I wanted to experiment with a bunch of different ways to roll attributes for a D&D or D20 style RPG made in MZ. For all the years I played D&D, we only used a couple of different methods. Imagine my surprise when I did some research and found out that there are a bunch of different ways.

Now, having no experience with most of what I found, I decided that I would take all the ones that seemed interesting or reasonable and see if I could build Events in MZ to replicate the rolling mechanics. I also decided that once I built the mechanic for each method, I would then design some simple tests to compare the results of the ranges of each method.

I have Evented 5 methods so far and things are going great.

So, here is a list of all the methods I am Eventing. I am not including distinctions of methods where you roll the same way, but the player has the option of choosing how to assign the results versus taking them as they come. For instance, the most basic method is to roll 3D6 for each attribute. One method is to assign the results as they are rolled. Another is to allow the player to assign the results after all attributes have been rolled.

At the end of the list, I am curious if you notice any methods that you have used and are missing and which methods you personally prefer.

I am basing these off planning to have 8 attributes, but that is easily changed.

Methods being Evented:

• Roll 3D6 for each attribute (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, drop lowest dice for each roll (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, drop lowest dice for each roll, roll 10 times, & use best 8 (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, drop lowest dice for each roll, reroll any result below 8 (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, drop lowest dice for each roll, swap any result below 8 with an 8 (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, drop lowest dice for each roll, reroll entire set if none above 15 (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, reroll any 1s, drop lowest dice for each roll (DONE)
• Roll 2D6 + 6 for each attribute (DONE)
• Roll 3D6 for each attribute, swap lowest dice to 6 (DONE)
• Roll 10D20 for each attribute, drop 2 lowest, reduce any over 18 to 18, add reduced amount to other rolls, but 18 max (DONE)
• Roll 3D6 x3 for each attribute, keep best result (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 x2 for each attribute, drop lowest from each roll, keep best result (DONE)

Two other methods that don't require roll Eventing are:

• Use a balanced array of results (so all players have the same results, but choose how to assign them)
• Determine the appropriate amount for a Point Buy Pool where all attributes start at a minimum amount

So I am currently planning on Eventing 12 rolling methods.

Based on this list, are there any obvious methods that you have used or heard about that are missing?

Which methods do you most prefer?

Do you want to make a bet on which method results in the best overall results?

I am very curious to see the results of the comparison tests and I will be sharing whatever I find.

@BubblegumPatty This is the list I was referring to in my earlier status post.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and offer any opinions that you have!

EDIT: Decided that I would update the original post with (DONE) when I finished something else.

EDIT EDIT: Be warned if you read through this thread. I was instrumental in temporarily derailing this thread when I had an emotional response to some input. That ended up causing a bit of a tiff. If you want to skip the drama lama stuff and see the end results of my experiments, you can just go to the very last post in this thread. Ultimately, I hope this helps someone.

 

[trouble time]

I think this is in the right place, but maybe not. I currently am sprinting down another Rabbit Hole because, why not?

I decided that I wanted to experiment with a bunch of different ways to roll attributes for a D&D or D20 style RPG made in MZ. For all the years I played D&D, we only used a couple of different methods. Imagine my surprise when I did some research and found out that there are a bunch of different ways.

Now, having no experience with most of what I found, I decided that I would take all the ones that seemed interesting or reasonable and see if I could build Events in MZ to replicate the rolling mechanics. I also decided that once I built the mechanic for each method, I would then design some simple tests to compare the results of the ranges of each method.

I have Evented 5 methods so far and things are going great.

So, here is a list of all the methods I am Eventing. I am not including distinctions of methods where you roll the same way, but the player has the option of choosing how to assign the results versus taking them as they come. For instance, the most basic method is to roll 3D6 for each attribute. One method is to assign the results as they are rolled. Another is to allow the player to assign the results after all attributes have been rolled.

At the end of the list, I am curious if you notice any methods that you have used and are missing and which methods you personally prefer.

I am basing these off planning to have 8 attributes, but that is easily changed.

Methods being Evented:

• Roll 3D6 for each attribute (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, drop lowest dice for each roll (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, drop lowest dice for each roll, roll 10 times, & use best 8 (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, drop lowest dice for each roll, reroll any result below 8 (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, drop lowest dice for each roll, swap any result below 8 with an 8 (DONE)
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, drop lowest dice for each roll, reroll entire set if none above 15
• Roll 4D6 for each attribute, reroll any 1s, drop lowest dice for each roll
• Roll 2D6 + 6 for each attribute
• Roll 3D6 for each attribute, swap lowest dice to 6
• Roll 10D20 for each attribute, drop 2 lowest, reduce any over 18 to 18, add reduced amount to other rolls, but 18 max
• Roll 3D6 x3 for each attribute, keep best result
• Roll 4D6 x2 for each attribute, drop lowest from each roll, keep best result

Two other methods that don't require roll Eventing are:

• Use a balanced array of results (so all players have the same results, but choose how to assign them)
• Determine the appropriate amount for a Point Buy Pool where all attributes start at a minimum amount

So I am currently planning on Eventing 12 rolling methods.

Based on this list, are there any obvious methods that you have used or heard about that are missing?

Which methods do you most prefer?

Do you want to make a bet on which method results in the best overall results?

I am very curious to see the results of the comparison tests and I will be sharing whatever I find.

@BubblegumPatty This is the list I was referring to in my earlier status post.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and offer any opinions that you have!

Irl i do 3d6 in order no matter what. For a video game though Id probably prefer pointbuy though i actually do prefer some randomness im character creation even in video games

 

[Aoi Ninami]

3d6 ranges from 3 to 18, average 10.5, and results in the middle are more likely than results at the extremes.

All the other methods you describe, except the d20-based one, are ways to "tweak" a 3d6 system so the player is protected from the possibility of really bad luck ruining their character before the game has even started.

However, with eight attributes and the possibility to allocate rolls as you choose, the player is already protected from a 3 in the wrong place ruining their character. (I'm guessing that the system is fairly typical in that classes tend to have "main" stats, e.g. a physical attacker needs a high Attack stat but can dump Magic.)

None of the methods will have "better" results -- the average stat will be higher than 10.5 for all of them, and some will have a higher average than others. But that just means that enemies need to be balanced differently, depending on what typical stats end up looking like in your game.

 

[BubblegumPatty]

Oooh I see I see.
Of the those present, the only one I can think of as missing is Critical Role's version of Roll 4D6, drop lowest where all the resulting attributes must total 70 or higher. With 8 attributes however, that minimum may have to be risen to 90 to have the same results.

 

[ZombieKidzRule]

@BubblegumPatty Thanks! I had that one written down, but since I haven't determined a good point total yet I forgot to mention that one. I am thinking of using the different methods to try to figure out a good point total for a minimum.

 

[gstv87]

I would then design some simple tests to compare the results of the ranges of each method.

I bet you whatever you wanna bet, that someone already came up with a mathematical model to write that, regardless of the arrangement of dice you choose.
why? because the average median always tends to the same curve.
using one type of dice or another will determine how up or down the scale you shift that median.

 

[LordOfPotatos]

to be honest I find rolling + bad luck protection incredibly silly.
if you think getting screwed by rolls is that bad why roll at all?

my method? you get a bare minimum stat template and some points to assign wherever you want. randomize those if you want for some reason.

let's not even talk about random level up stats or I'll go off :/

 

[Danatoth]

For me, the only way to do it in a game is point buy. If not, I'll just roll a million times until I get what I want. Point buy pretty much solves every problem.

 

[Gensun]

Randomized stats really depend on why you need the mechanic to begin with. Some examples I can name of computer or console-based rpg's that made use of stat randomization:

• Pokemon: The idea was in theory that randomizing your pokemon's IV stat is gives them each their own individuality with strengths and weaknesses. However, this is basically negligible for most players who aren't going to notice and its biggest impact is in the competitive scene. Once you do competitive, you need pokemon with perfectly min-maxed stats and nothing less. In the end, because perfect stat pokemon are very difficult or annoying to obtain, most casual players will see that their playthrough mons they built a connection with, are doomed to being competitively unviable by virtue of genetics (and the implications that carry)
• Roguelikes: Probably the best genre for stat randomization because random and unpredictable playthroughs are the central game mechanic.
• Maplestory (the OG one): New players can roll a dice for each of their starting stats. In practice, will just keep re-rolling until you get perfect stats and this can be a very, very long wait that doesn't add to the experience

Vast majority of games instead either use pre-defined stats and stat growth or give you full freedom to allocate your stats. Again I urge you to please do your genre research to see first hand that many of DnD's core mechanics are not viable in a computerized medium

 

[ATT_Turan]

I would then design some simple tests to compare the results of the ranges of each method.

There's really no need unless you just enjoy the exercise. There are already Web sites that will give you the distribution of values for whatever kind of die rolls you want.

To answer your thread's question, I've always hated rolling for attributes in any way. It's inherently unbalanced in a game system that's highly dependent on its numbers.

Array distribution or point buy is all I'd ever use (I give my players point buy totals in the games I run).

 

[BubblegumPatty]

Personally with tabletops I love rolling, as it gives my character flavor without me having to manually decide "oh this person is a little naive" or "a stiff wind could knock this person over".

With video games, I lean more towards point-buy distributions but don't mind rolling terribly... So long as it's balanced so that even the worst rolls are just "meh" at worst (like the critrole versions of rolling I mentioned). I don't want to feel like I have to mid-max just to beat a game.

 

[ZombieKidzRule]

Thanks for all these responses! Please, keep them coming! It is always interesting hearing other people's perspectives.

I can see an initial trend toward something like Point Buy, which I guess isn't surprising.

And I appreciate that there may already be methods to determine what I will be testing for or perhaps information claiming to show what results would be, but I am a show me person and I prefer to see things in action. Math and I are not always friends and I don't trust voodoo statistics. I want to see the results myself. And rather than sit and roll dice a bunch of times myself, I can make MZ do the work!

Sort of how I did a test to see if High HP with High Damage was essentially the same as Low HP with Low Damage. And what I found was that there wasn't a big difference over many tests. Yet many people expressed opinions that there would be a significant difference and that just didn't show in test results. Sometimes I think we believe something because it makes sense to us rationally, but when we actually test it, those tests don't always support our belief.

I do enjoy experimenting with things like this and it actually helps me learn. Just doing this one experiment has already helped me learn several new scripty things in MZ that I will be able to use going forward so that is cool.

The very first game I played, Eye of the Beholder, had you roll your stats, with a reroll button right there to make it easy to roll again if you wanted. It took about a second to reroll stats. PLUS the game had the ability to manually set whatever stat you wanted up or down anyway. Why would a game do that, you might wonder? Well, it seems that different players want to do different things. Did I always just manually max out my stats? Nope. But I could have. I will just say that player preferences sometimes seems weird.

I also remember games, looking at you Wizardry 6, where you could technically reroll you character, but it was a major pain in the butt. And the player manual even acknowledged that and told the player to get ready to spend a few hours rolling until you got your dream team. I guess that is one of those differences with the hard core games of the past. No instant gratification. No hand holding. The developers were not shy about killing the player. Any game where the first treasure you get is an item to resurrect a certain number of times is probably telling you something. You gonna die. The player manual even said to save. A LOT! Not saying that was the best design. But I loved the game enough to put up with it. I definitely wouldn't do it that way. But, if possible, I would prefer to give players a multitude of options so people can find something close to what they prefer.

@Gensun I definitely appreciate the point about D&D mechanics not translating well to computer games. I wouldn't necessarily say not viable, until I discover that for myself. But that is also why I usually say D&D style. When I say that I mean taking what I like about the concepts of D&D and experiment to see if they could be implemented in a game in a way that works. Whether or not that works for individual players is a different issue. And I should say whether or not I can implement them based on what I learn.

When doing something like this, I have a few different goals. To learn how to do things in MZ. To experiment with how things actually work and see results for myself. And to have fun making stuff that interests me. All in the pursuit of making the game that I would want to play.

Honestly, if I could make the turn-based, love child game between Wizardry 6-8 and Morrowind, I would probably be very happy. With a little DNA from some other games tossed in.

I know it may seem crazy to invest time in making something that you might not actually put in a game, but for me, it is a way to learn something new, have fun, and see for myself if my and other people's perspectives and perceptions of things are accurate.

At least until I find another Rabbit Hole to fall into. Wabbits!

I will also just say that I am approaching game making the same way I have approached writing for close to 4 decades. I write what I want to write. I tell the story I want to tell. I let the story unfold as it unfolds. I never think about what other people will think. Whether anyone else will like what I have written. Or if what I have written will offend someone's sensibilities. My writing is mine. It is an expression of myself. I write what I enjoy reading. And I feel the same way about game making. If I invest 10,000 hours in making a game that I love, it will be worth it. Even if no one else ever plays it or no one else appreciates it. Even if I built options in the game specifically for other players that I wouldn't use. That probably sounds very weird to some people, but it is what it is.

It goes back to that fundamental question. Am I having fun?

Anyway, thanks again for sharing your thoughts and experiences! It is always beneficial to me and why I think being part of a community like this is important.

END OF GIANT WALL OF TEXT.

 

[gstv87]

Whether or not that works for individual players is a different issue

emphasis on that, as *losing because of a poor choice of stats* (AKA, intentionally trying to stack the values towards one strong aspect) should also be part of the game.
you shouldn't use the method that yields the most wins, you should use the method that is fair across the board, and the players have to understand that.

in my days of MMOs, people would always pick wizards because they'd have the greatest attack, and with a quick stat change they could gain 3x their attack by taking MDF and adding MAT.
the counter for those attacks was the clerics, who would drain (AND give) MP to everyone, and with the lower MDF and lower MP cap because of that stat change, a cleric would make short work of whatever attack the wizard would have, by running them dry.
but the GM decided to basically gift free mana potions because "boo the wizard keeps dying, preety pleez buff!"
down the drain with the clerics, the shamans, the druids and everyone who played with debuffs and MP management because what's the point on healing 1000 HP if the wizard can nuke 3 players for 10000 HP.
a perfectly balanced RPS system trashed because people didn't understand that taking MDF inherently meant losing MP.

 

[Danatoth]

I think the fundamental difference is that in a board game it's fun to have character flaws. Where say a character with low charisma can have interesting penalties imposed by the GM. There are myriad ways to do this on tabletop, but very few in a pc game. Even AAA studios have minimal implementation of this, with maybe some extra dialogue nowadays, and at most like in fallout 2 other ways to get passed skill checks.


For example in tabletop a wizard that rolled a few points extra in strength in character creation could have an interesting encounter in a battle where they could have just enough strength to live a large rock to fling with magic, or just enough strength to pick up their injured friend to run them to safety, etc. In a game, none of that would ever happen. So if you were making your wizard in the game with a normal roll system you'd just skip that character because they'd be wasted stats since nothing interesting would come of them.

So all the benefits of having a roll system are gone in a game, and that's why games got rid of this for the vast majority, and use a point buy system. In early games, they only still had it because the tabletop version had it. And I remember sitting there (and still do) on baldur's gate 2 rerolling my dice until I hit the stats I wanted. Games are too limited in their scopes to incorporate stats to the degree that would matter or be fun.

 

[LordOfPotatos]

I think the fundamental difference is that in a board game it's fun to have character flaws. Where say a character with low charisma can have interesting penalties imposed by the GM. There are myriad ways to do this on tabletop, but very few in a pc game. Even AAA studios have minimal implementation of this, with maybe some extra dialogue nowadays, and at most like in fallout 2 other ways to get passed skill checks.

then again if you do pointbuy you can still make such a character if you want. you just eliminate the chance of getting that character when you don't want it.

 

[Danatoth]

then again if you do pointbuy you can still make such a character if you want. you just eliminate the chance of getting that character when you don't want it.

You wouldn't even get it if you didn't want it. You'd just have to sit there and reroll over and over again until you got what you wanted. No matter which way you slice it, not having point buy is a bad QoL. If you want to solve it all, just do point buy with a button you can press that does a random distribution.

 

[ZombieKidzRule]

@Danatoth I appreciate your perspective, but I definitely don't agree. There is a difference between haven't/don't and can't. Just because computer games haven't implemented substantive effects of attribute ranges or similar things, doesn't mean that it can't be done.

Lack of desire, imagination, or unwillingness to invest resources into something like that doesn't mean it isn't possible. I can think a many different ways that you could incorporate meaningful events, options, dialog, etc. around attribute ranges. And a myriad of other things as well.

I agree that many games have "variety" and "choices" just so the player feels like they have variety and choices. And I agree that many games don't really incorporate any meaning into things like races, alignment, etc. Beyond just a few bonuses or simple things like that. Yet many players seem to like it.

Taking your wizard example. If a game incorporates a variety of things that are based on strength, then that wizard could potentially do any of those things as well. Of course you are always limited to role play options comparing tabletop games to computer games. But that is true generally, across the board. A human DM can incorporate all sort of role play options that a computer game has to have been specifically designed to replicate.

I will also say that I my perspective is also biased in this regard because I really don't like RPG stereotypes. Like wizards must inherently be weak. Maybe because I like classless systems or multiclass systems the most.

I think the temptation is to say that tabletop games have more inherent flexibility because you have a live DM there to adjudicate anything that happens and change course on that fly. And that is true. But that doesn't mean that you can't, with a little imagination and foresight, try to emulate some of those same possibilities and experiences in a computer game.

The more options you build in for the player, the more possibilities that exist.

Now, I'm not saying that is easy or even affordable for a developer who wants to maximize profits. But saying that you can't incorporate substantive meaning into attribute ranges or other such things is, I think, disingenuous. You can, but most developers don't/won't.

I would say that this is generally only limited by 3 things:

1. The capabilities of the engine
2. Your capabilities as the developer
3. Your own imagination

So while I agree that most game developers aren't interested in taking the time to make something substantive from attribute ranges and other such things, that doesn't mean that it isn't possible or that someone else shouldn't bother to try.

As a developer, I can readily build in possibilities if a party member has an abysmal charisma or something like that. I just need the imagination, motivation, and desire to bother to incorporate it. Which is one of the benefits of being a hobbiest developer. If you aren't in it for profit, you can pretty much do anything you want.

 

[Danatoth]

@Danatoth I appreciate your perspective, but I definitely don't agree. There is a difference between haven't/don't and can't. Just because computer games haven't implemented substantive effects of attribute ranges or similar things, doesn't mean that it can't be done.

So you are saying, that out of the literal hundreds of crpgs with tens to hundreds of developers each, none wanted to implement these things? It is a scope issue.

Lack of desire, imagination, or unwillingness to invest resources into something like that doesn't mean it isn't possible. I can think a many different ways that you could incorporate meaningful events, options, dialog, etc. around attribute ranges. And a myriad of other things as well.

Again, you think that no devs had the desire or imagination or weren't willing to do this? Really? Out of the literal 10's of thousands of devs that have worked on these games, nobody had these desires or imagination?

Taking your wizard example. If a game incorporates a variety of things that are based on strength, then that wizard could potentially do any of those things as well. Of course you are always limited to role play options comparing tabletop games to computer games. But that is true generally, across the board. A human DM can incorporate all sort of role play options that a computer game has to have been specifically designed to replicate.

No, in my example the wizard picked up a rock. No games are going to implement everything that exist. That could have been a brick, a tree branch, large tomes, anything nearby. No game can possible incorporate all of everything that exists. And for skill checks, a wizards strength would never come up because a fighter or another STR based class would have higher strength anyway.

I think the temptation is to say that tabletop games have more inherent flexibility because you have a live DM there to adjudicate anything that happens and change course on that fly. And that is true. But that doesn't mean that you can't, with a little imagination and foresight, try to emulate some of those same possibilities and experiences in a computer game.

You cannot get even close to 1% of what you can do in a table top game, where you can do literally anything. Games are by nature confined to what was created. There is no going outside the limits of anything. Do you think that no dev has ever had the want or desire to do this? CRPGs are the way that they are because it is literally impossible to get anywhere even remotely close to what you can do in a table top. Instead they focus their scope on the big things, such as general skill checks, conversation subjects that are relevant to only what's added in the game, etc.

I would say that this is generally only limited by 3 things:

1. The capabilities of the engine
2. Your capabilities as the developer
3. Your own imagination

You're missing the biggest limitation - time. These games have literally hundreds of developers working for YEARS making these crpgs FULL TIME, and they are constrained by time. Not skill, or desire to replicate a table top game.

Lets take on of my favorites, Divinity Original Sin: 2. Larian's team had 130 developers working on it.
We can find their dev diary here: https://divinity.game/history
So started work november 2014 and finished Sept 2017. Incredibly fast for a game as massive as this. In total that's 34 months in development. With 130 employees working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, that is 5,440 hours per employee in those 34 months. Lets say they each get an entire month off a year (a total of 2.83 months off during that time) that's 4,923 hours. With 130 employees that comes out to be 639,990 hours total development time.

If you wanted to put the same amount of time, as 1 person into building that game, it would be 79,998 hours of working 8 hours straight every day. Or 9.12 years working 8 hours a day, every single day and this is just the scope of divinity original sin 2. To implement all these things you're talking about, it would take astronomically longer.

That is the biggest thing you are missing - is time. To think that you're special and have all these ideas that literally thousands upon thousands of people never thought of before, is disingenuous. The implementation of these ideas takes time. A lot of time. And keep in mind, all these things you are adding are going to cause bugs. Every new mechanic and check is going to cause bugs that cross breed with other bugs to create giant spaghetti code bugs, and you're 1 person. Larian had hundreds of people testing their game, and a team of developers fixing those bugs.

So while I agree that most game developers aren't interested in taking the time to make something substantive from attribute ranges and other such things.

The OG crpgs were from giant nerdy fans of table top games, and to a large extent are still today. To say those original folks didn't want to do as much as they could to make it realistic, is again - disingenuous. They were just realistic in what they could accomplish in a game without spending literally 30 years making something.

As a developer, I can readily build in possibilities if a party member has an abysmal charisma or something like that. I just need the imagination, motivation, and desire to bother to incorporate it. Which is one of the benefits of being a hobbiest developer. If you aren't in it for profit, you can pretty much do anything you want.

Sure, you can do all those things. But do you have the amount of time to actually do that?

Imo, you're being unrealistic. There are so many things developers have wanted to implement in their games over the years, but the biggest constraint is time. Scope creep is a real killer. If you want to implement everything you'd like, you'll never actually have a game.

 

[Gensun]

I also want to add that the things being advised here on this thread are not personal preferences. Project scope isn't an opinion, it's an objective measure of the work needed to implement an idea. People's real experience with game dev are not opinions, they are an objective relationship between their ideas and their practice. Countless devs have thought that having an anime protagonist ethos which the will of determination can overcome all obstacles. Few actually get something out

 

[ZombieKidzRule]

@Danatoth I get your points and I appreciate them. But I will still go back to the same underlying point of it isn't impossible. If time and cost are the true problems, then it isn't impossible.

I'm not saying that no one thought of doing these things or didn't want to do these things or whatever. And I apologize for offending people if that is how my response was worded. But not doing them due to time, cost, etc. doesn't make it not possible.

And of course a computer game can't possibly replicate a role playing, human led tabletop game. But people try to make what they like or what they think other people will like just the same.

Perhaps my argument was not tactful and inarticulate. But I don't believe that there are only a few ways to implement something like this and the fact that games don't do it normally doesn't mean it can't be done.

Yeah, I am very optimistic until I learn through trial and error that my goals are unrealistic. Right now, I don't even have a defined goal. Other than to work on a game that I would like to play. And as I have said before, I fully acknowledge that I may never finish a game. But for me, as long as I am having fun doing what I'm doing, who cares?

I can afford to invest dozens of hours experimenting on some mechanic that might not be practical to actually implement in a game. Because that is what I want to do and it doesn't hurt anyone. Hell, I spent weeks replicating different variations of a Sudoku puzzle that doesn't have anything to do with an RPG game that I would want to play. Why? Because it caught my interest and it was fun to do and learn from.

Now, if anything I have said was worded in way that inferred that I was offering advice to other people then I apologize. I know that I am an outlier in a lot of ways on this forum and I try very hard not to state my opinions or perspectives as fact. And I try not to influence anyone else.

So, to be clear to anyone reading this, I am not suggesting that you should attempt to incorporate anything like this into your projects or games, unless you have an overwhelming desire to do so and proceed with full awareness of the undertaking.

I don't think I'm special. I'm diligent. Stubborn. Optimistic. Delusional perhaps.

I reacted in part to your stating your own opinion and perspective as facts. Which I shouldn't have done.

You have your opinion on the matter and so do I.

It sounds like we agree that such things aren't impossible, which was the intent of my original response, but rather they are time and cost prohibitive. Which I don't disagree with.

So again, I apologize for offending anyone with my previous response. It certainly was not intended to be an attack on anyone who develops games. But I won't apologize for having the nerve to believe that someone could at the very least attempt to incorporate something like this in a game if they are willing to invest the time and energy to do so. Because they want to. Because they think it would be fun. Because they are ok with it if it doesn't work out.

But since I am obviously having a moment of difficulty and being more argumentative and combative than usual, I think I need to give myself a timeout for a bit. Clearly I need a break.

Again, my sincerest apologies for anything from this post that is offensive to anyone either personally, privately, or professionally. That was certainly not my intent.