Search results

I want them to at least try it, because IME, lots of people who play mainstream RPG have been taught that only two kinds of play exist, G and S, and that the later one is for "true roleplayer".

To get Combat advantage and Sneak attack dmg dices for an attack ? Your assumption is wrong : "You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view. If you later attack or shout, you’re no longer hidden."

Depends on what you mean by "You ARE the Hero!". First question, Hero of an already much written story or Hero of a story to be written (or no story at all for Purist-For-System S) ? I want established players to go from incoherent G-S to hybrid G-N, because I think they will have more fun...

You don't know how much it's cool to heard that coming from one of the most important designer of D&D. You are right; Edward's Big Model (evolution of GNS) was not build for game design purpose, but to analyze the behavior of the players at the table. However, one can look at a game text...

When you get a Stealth check thanks to a sucessfull Bluff check, you don't need cover, because the opponent is considered distracted. Same thing as the "sneak behind" out of combat example.

And Perception for searching a room is done with take 20.

Yes and Yes. The "bad" comes from incoherence, which can be explained as a game promoting different kind of play in a confusing way. The good news is that it will be easier in 4E than in 3E to fix it. First, that theory didn't exist when D&D was built with incoherence in the first time...

Vanilla = without relaying much or any at all on System. Why ? Because I want D&D to fill the gamism niche and that I think that many players (both newcomers and old-timers that suffered from "bad" DMs) would enjoy a lot more vanilla Nar than Sim at the adventure level.

You know what, most of the time I agree with you.

It was my personal reasoning before I met RPG theory. However, both as a DM and a player I have seen too many times players justyfing sub-optimal combat behavior by "I follow my character personality / background / whatever". BTW, a RPG where combat behavior is driven by those is possible...

Exactly (To make decisions, put your characters shoes, which include alignement, personality traits and background stuff). BTW, I'm also saying that the DMG text is promoting Illusionism/Participationism in some places.

They may know it's a good idea to do A (follow tactics) but their heart says to do B (follow character definition). That's the whole problem.

This formula doesn't make sense for low-strength hero anyway (forget the NPC example).

Here is my suggested house rule build from my previous post : PCs can have up to 5(feel free to change this number) background features on their character sheet. A background feature can be called for to get the famous circumstances bonus (+2). A player with less than 5 background features...

Which one bother you ?

IME, incoherence in D&D is the main reason for much of the problems at the table and the endless debates on these boards.

You are sure to have understand something about the Big Model(GNS) ?

The main problem is that a good part of the book says that decision should be tactical and the rest says the opposite (do what your character would do). In my OP, I said that I think D&D should be tactical at the encounter level.

And if you get a clue needed to fulfill an optional minor quest ?

It can be a big deal in a "solve the mystery in a way written in stone" kind of adventure. Of course, IMHO, no important clues should be given without a check. (pure fluff, no problem).