galsiah said:
The player gets to choose because it's an interesting choice with pros and cons on both sides.
With every single NPC you ever fight against? Is that a fact?
I do find it interesting to add a "random" element, having a margin of error introduces a more far-reaching and substantial gameplay element.
Instead of a simple decision at the end of the actual combat, the player is encouraged to adapt his combat style; instead of just using the most effective killing method the player might try to cripple or disarm his opponent, even if such finesse isn't always his first choice.
As explained before, fast attacks are a simple way of decreasing the chance of accidental kills, yet may be less effective and thus increase the challenge.
If the survival of NPCs isn't always significant, there still remains the statistical distinction and the question of how much effort a player wants to invest to avoid unnecessary casualties becomes more relevant. The player is then given the choice to make a personal goal of avoiding deaths, or take them as they come, incurring a higher bodycount. Last not least the player can of course decide to kill any opponent without mercy.
I'm not sure what Critical Strike does exactly. I believe it does give the player the special ability to attack NPCs from conversation, but does it also increase the chance of critical hits? If there is any way of permanently increasing the chance of criticals (I think there are at least the mushrooms) then this becomes another factor. Increased chance of critical hits means more damage in general, but it also increases the chance of accidental kills, which a player may find undesireable. Hmm, more criticals or more control? Darned decisions!
Comparing this to choosing whether to succeed or fail at a skill check is not useful.
That must be why I didn't do it, although strangely you can't seem to tell the difference. I didn't compare the choice itself to a skill check, I compared whether or not the player gets the result he decided for to a skill check.
If the choice is indeed relevant, we can assume the player settles for one option.
Now there are a positive and a negative result, where actually achieving the chosen result constitutes a success and the alternative a failure. I consider this a seperate challenge, and that's what makes games interesting. Just deciding can be ok too, but a little challenge seems more entertaining to me.
By the way, if I read VDs last post correctly, then effectively doing as little as 6 points of damage could outright kill an NPC without a chance to yield first. That would basically achive the same I was aiming for.
And naturally, this would in principle be true for any chosen "yield threshold" value.