G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Either way, I couldn't imagine it playing out like [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s example.
That makes two of us!
Either way, I couldn't imagine it playing out like [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s example.
There are some GMs who (maybe poor form or maybe by design) dont explicitly mark the end of their stage in the play loop with a formal declaration every scene.
<snip>
Sometimes it just a more rookie GM thing but sometimes it's more a setting atmosphere and sense of impending threat that *formally acknowledging the beginning and end stage of each segment in the hitherto agreed upon by all parties play loop* fits like letting the air out of a wet bslloon.
The comment was about not using a formal declaration/acknowledgement. And the reasong given was to preserve atmosphere.Why would a DM "by design" not signal to the players that they need to do something? What does that even mean?
To me, this would seem a good reason not to call for a check at all, because nothing is at stake.. Just narrate the climbing of the unremarable wall and keep moving until something more significant comes up.
Regarding the wall that's just a wall ...
Who said there was no consequence t failure? Just because it's a minor background issue, doesn't mean it's not important. Don't get me wrong, a lot of times the wall is just climbed. But if there's time pressure or falling from the wall could cause injury or other setback then I think a check should be called for. Maybe the quickest way would be to climb but there's also a longer way around or a more dangerous route, so on and so forth.
I'm just saying some obstacles are simple. Sometimes a chest is trapped because it makes sense for it to be trapped and there is a level of risk, that doesn't mean I'm going to make a big deal out of it.
But it also goes back to who is overcoming the obstacle; the PC or the player? Some obstacles will be player challenges by their nature, I simply think some things should be PC challenges.
What I'm not sure about is what is distinctive about the mechanics of 5e vs 4e that make one or the other approach suitable. That is, if someone ran 4e as you run 5e, what would break down? Or if someone ran 5e in the 4e style, what would break down?I don’t think it’s so much an assumption that the players will need that level of structure, but rather that D&D 5e aims to create a play experience that said structure facilitates.
<snip>
Sounds like 4e to me. And that’s not a bad thing. I still think 4e is the best-designed edition of D&D, from a mechanical standpoint.
What I'm not sure about is what is distinctive about the mechanics of 5e vs 4e that make one or the other approach suitable.
I'm not meaning to be a smart-arse, but to me that looks almost self-contradictory: how can it be minor yet important?Just because it's a minor background issue, doesn't mean it's not important.
But calling for a check makes it a big deal - or at least that's how it seems to me.Sometimes a chest is trapped because it makes sense for it to be trapped and there is a level of risk, that doesn't mean I'm going to make a big deal out of it.
I think challenge the PC means something like establish a ficitonal situation in which the PC faces a challenge.I have a problem understanding this. How do you challenge a PC? It can’t think, it can’t act, it can’t do anything other than what the player says it does. It’s like a User Interface but it isn’t itself the User. It’s always the player behind the avatar that has to think and act.
What am I missing?
There was a reason I asked [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION].Play it and get back to us.
There was a reason I asked [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION].