Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alex319" data-source="post: 5325794" data-attributes="member: 45678">You may have misunderstood the point of the example. The point of the example is that the mechanic of "It only works if you can predict how the DM will interpret your fluff" can be just as dissociated as "It only works if the rulebook says it does." Whether the DM is making his decisions based on realism or some other factor is beside the point.And as I understand what LostSoul is talking about, in his system you say your action, the DM makes whatever judgement calls are necessary to adjudicate the results, and that's that - you don't get a chance to "talk it over" any more than you get a chance to undo your action if you rolled poorly in regular D+D.(And if you did get the opportunity to ask the DM about how he would rule in advance, then it seems like the optimal strategy would be to come up with as many possible actions as you can, ask the DM about how they would work, and essentially build up a library of "powers" that you already know how they work. So the system would likely reduce to something similar to the standard 4e system.)Can you elaborate a bit on what those "principles" are? Let's take my "blocking swords with your bare hands" example - what "principles" would you use to determine whether or not it works?</blockquote>