Search results

What @Umbran said above in post 950 is pretty much the point I was attempting to make. I don't want to expend much mental energy getting to the point where we've determined if a character's actions and intent have succeeded or failed. I want to devote my energy to painting the picture of...

Find a relatively safe space. Short rest. (Unused Hit Die aren't helping anybody, and keeping a reserve isn't useful when this is a possible TPK situation.) A key question next is if wandering encounters during a long rest are determined narratively or procedurally. If procedurally, are the...

Well, yea, that's just game play. But I differentiate between me "making a decision" (specifically, me deciding if an attempt actually passes/fails) and me "narrating the next scene".

Sure. And it definitely seems like our group setups have more in common with each other than they differ; we both seem to have situations where the "group" is the central relationship and the hosting situations migrates to whichever location is the most convenient or comfortable. This seems...

Sure. Weird edge cases are always gonna happen. But I don't want the core gameplay loop to be me constantly making decisions on if the player's action worked or not.

Trivially easy, in other words.

This. I'm always looking for systems that relieve me of as much of the "master" burden as possible. I don't want to make a bunch of adjudication calls; I want the game engine to decide the results as much as possible! I want my focus to be on presenting cool challenges and interesting NPCs...

I mean, since we're in "dueling anecdotes" territory, that's not how my games work at all. I have one friends-and-family table I'm the "forever GM" for, but my wife and several other participants handle the scheduling. If I'm lucky, I get reminded I'm GMing the morning of. :) Our other...

Does that make her a Spice Girl Wannabe? :)

Because there aren’t high level martial class features that compete with the ability to make yet another attack. The belief is too many people would feel compelled to take the 5/5/5/5 progression to maximize attacks. They could have come up with a MC system to allow Extra Attacks to increase...

That terminology does have a strange charm to it.

Fortunately, I don’t need a survey to know that I know better than everyone else. :)

Ok, but what argument are you making, then? Are you saying that the numbers don’t matter? Is there a magnitude where they start to matter? Are they meant purely as an aid to characterization? The core issue with the “balance doesn’t mean much” idea is that it means all the progression and...

You could probably extend Monster of the Week out for a bit, since it’s meant to be episodic and procedural by nature.

In the context of feats being available, I like the idea a lot more. You just recontextualize 10s as being the broad spectrum of normal humanity, and use proficiencies, backgrounds, and skills to provide the character descriptors people usually derive from stats.

Just go to anydice.com, and put this in: output 15d2-12 output [highest 15 of 16d2]-12 output [highest 15 of 17d2]-12 output [highest 15 of 18d2]-12

I was assuming feats were off the table, since @CleverNickName said ASIs. But yes, feats being available every level would definitely impact the calculus.

I'm not saying it can't work. I'm just saying I'm not sure what in-game actions could happen that could cause people to make a deviation from their obvious path. If a flametongue greatsword drops at ,say, level 3, I'm sure somebody is going to use it. But realistically, the party will give it...

Ok, so more "sandbox-y", I suppose (at least how I normally use the term.) Player-directed, but not built around the characters.

Nah. Almost everyone thinking at least a little strategically will raise their main stat to somewhere between 16-20, then Con to a comfortable level (probably 14), and then usually Dex to at least 14 (unless they wear heavy armor), pretty much in that order.