Search results

I think in that case, your last post is a pretty good benchmark: Depletes you of "steam": Surge loss. Direct bodily harm: HP loss. Save or Die: Three Saves or Die.

I've begun to treat most all damage out of battle as Surge loss. They're just gonna spend a Surge, anyway.

The ex post facto part is confusing me, which I've always taken to mean "change after the fact", at least when used in Icelandic. But I assume you mean that the mechanics will lack consistency--which can create disassociation--rather than worries about DMs jumping mechanics mid-game. Yeah?

So by removing table-to-table consistency, players become more aware of the rules and thus it feels metagamey? Am I understanding you correctly?

I just don't really get what you mean. How is it metagamey? Do you just mean that it makes you more aware of the rules?

That doesn't seem metagamey to me. That just seems like D&D to me, but with pre-made house rules instead of homebrewed ones.

I'm having the opposite reaction. Finding the stuff I'm interested in takes a lot less digging after the change.

That's not a flaw; that's sementics. I called them Skill Checks to differentiate them from Saves. Both are Ability Checks, as are Attack Rolls-- each is a different type of Ability Check. Skills don't impact Attack Rolls (even though some may want them to), so I see no reason why they should...

Yes, but it is the first step towards answering the question. Once you've clarified this (as per GX.Sigma's wonderings) you have a clear differentation between the two: If the attempt at disbelief is iniated by the PC, it's a Skill Check and if it's called for by the DM as a response to some...

My take: Checks that PCs initiate are Skill Checks, while checks that are called for in reaction to something are Saves.

I have considered it and kind of want to do it, but I reckoned it was more trouble than it was worth and my players do like to see their numbers tick up every other level (even though it was a player who was the first remark on the frustration of the level bonus feeling pointless). But in my...

Lovcraftian horror gets much the same treatment in D&D as it does in superhero comics, and for the same reason: You need to be able to beat it up.

But those wouldn't be from beyond the stars, which I believe was pemerton's jab.

Weren't the Defender feats just swept over to Maneuvers?

We use Surges for this in my 4e game. Encounters result in Surge loss, be it a Combat Encounter or a Skill Encounter. It's your Steam for the day.

Person of Interest is my favorite show these days.

I was trying to think of some yesterday. Couldn't think of any. TSR's Alternity had levels, but they didn't seem to do much, IIRC. And was meant to be for sci-fi what D&D was to fantasy. Rolemaster has levels, I believe, but it also spun out of D&D. I know there are plenty of people here more...

I'm gonna ditto some folks here: Advancement is important for long running games. Leveling, not so much. Or more games would have it and most don't.

After every minor player decision, ask "Are you sure?" Works wonders.

I do most of my prep on the computer, except for mapping (after trying a dozen programs and approaches, I found I just prefer to do maps by hand). I use Google Docs for all my notes and such, so I can access it from anywhere to jot down ideas when I have them. Before sessions, I'll write out...