Search results

If you only allow for actions explicitly stated in PHB, and basically turn it into an overcomplicated boardgame, yeah, it will be a fair and unbiased test of skill, I guess. Would be a pretty different game, though. It all flies out of the window the moment one of the players decides to, say...

Also blorb-style, which I'm completely unfamiliar with, but at first glance it looks like it can enable skill play. Those I can name. No, that's not what I mean. Like, for example, a competition where participants submits screenshots of their Dark Souls characters and judges, well, judge their...

Being able to compare and contrast the skill level of different people (or teams) is, I think, a prerequisite. A leaderboard is competitive by definition. Not existence per se, but a possibility of existence of a leaderboard. I have a bunch of small indie fighting games on my hard drive that I...

Yeah, maybe. A skill that is impossible to test (and one that bears exactly zero difference on the outcome of the game anyway) What a ranked competitive leaderboard for dnd would even look like?

Let's say a system uses custom D6s, with one Circle, two Squares and three Crosses. If you roll at least one Circle, it's a full success. If you roll at least one Square, but no Circles, it's a success at a cost. Otherwise it's a failure. Is this a comparison?

I can imagine an RPG that includes a genuine test of skill. Well, I can name some: Dread involves Jenga, my beloved MUJIK IS DEAD is all about player's skill at weaving established issues the character has into a coherent narration, my Swashbuckling! hinges upon one's ability to come up with...

The way I see it if A) GM can just conjure an obstacle from thin air B) It's impossible to distinguish obstacles conjured from thin air and obstacles prepared beforehand Then, as I said, the only limiting factor is GM's willingness to conjure obstacles from thin air. PCs defeated five goblins...

Absolutely none. You might be unwilling to conjure ten thousand tarrasques, doesn't change the fact that your will is the only limiting factor at play. And can a player take a look at the encounter at hand, calculate the CR and say "hey, this encounter is way too easy" (or "this encounter is...

This is awesome, thank you

Yeah, but other games don't try to pretend like it's anything other than GM letting the PCs win. And idk about "extreme bad faith". The difference between adding one goblin, hell, one HP to an existing goblin and conjuring ten thousand tarrasques is non-existent.

I must admit, maybe I just chalk up people being bad to them not understanding the game, but pretty much every time I had a some variant of this interaction with them: -- I shoot goblin with my crossbow! -- ...you have firebolt on your character sheet, it does more damage, and you have higher...

I'm not sure this line can be drawn. A level designer doesn't participate in the game and has no ability to change stuff on the fly. A game master can and players cannot tell the difference between something invented right on the spot and something prepared beforehand. If, say, monster list and...

I'm not sure if this analogy applies, to be honest. A) Test is (at least supposed to be) non-arbitrary. Yes, teacher can set harder questions, but it's not like they feasibly can ask first-graders about eigenvectors. B) Teacher is (at least supposed to be) to have a greater expertise in the...

Let's say you are playing a game of Warhammer for an agreed upon number of points, and you see your opponent placing a tad too many models to the table. You can check their army list and say: "Hey, there's only 3 tactical squads in your list, why are there four on the table?" (note: they are not...

It was intended to be an OR operation (which, when negated, becomes AND): a test of skill to be legitimate should be either not arbitrary or be set in stone. A fight in a game like dnd is both completely arbitrary (there's no reason there's ten goblins, and not fifty, or five) and impossible to...

I don't think it really matters whether it's over 9000 or just a couple of points beyond the guidelines. They are still unenforceable and, thus, completely meaningless. The fundamental issue doesn't go anywhere: GM has to pull punches and can't create the most brutal adversity she can, so...

I'm not talking about the narrative, though. I'm talking about the test of player skill at playing the game. The player negotiating about the challenge at hand a) runs contrary to the Czege principle (which I personally don't subscribe to, but still) b) again, hinges upon the GM being willing...

They would, if the text of the book didn't stress so much that they are completely optional, and they were enforceable. What can you do, even if you know that the current encounter is CR over 9000? Especially considering you are not even supposed to know that in the first place. And then there...

Rolling dice in BitD doesn't really require comparison, though, just basic recognition. You don't need to compare 6 to 4, you just know that 6 is more than 4, and you know what 6 looks like.

This is the point. The only possible way a player can succeed in dnd if the GM lets them succeed. The only reason they won a fight is because GM decided not to bring reinforcements. Didn't, but could. Could, but didn't. Ooh but she needs a narrative justification! Yeah, those cost nothing. I'm...