Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm-Bringer" data-source="post: 4130834" data-attributes="member: 57832">But you don't really need strict rules for that.  Certainly not 400+ pages of rules in three books.  Co-operative story-telling is no better or worse than any other style, but if that is the goal of D&D, it will fail miserably.  Head over to the Forge and check out the co-operative style games they have.  Typically, 32 pages or less.  Minimalist rules and dice.How would you define 'ten orcs' as something other than 'a challenge to overcome'?  I will grant, spells and steel aren't the only way to interact with this situation.  However, according to the stated design goals, they aren't there to much other purpose.  That is simply how the ruleset is laid out.  If that is 'semi-adversarial', then the rules encourage that.I am not intimately familiar with RuneQuest, but you would describe a typical session as simply wandering about the countryside recording details?Certainly, for some players.  But that is moving away from the realm of 'game' and into the realm of 'anthology'.  As I mentioned above, if a particular group is looking to tell a rousing story of great deeds and daring, no edition of D&D really supports that well.But again, this moves away from 'playing a game' into 'telling a story'.  To be clear, I am not against any such style of play.  But I think you will have an uphill battle showing that the new edition has more than superficial support for that style.Using an applicable skill for a task is not 'adversarial'.  Nor is it 'semi-adversarial'.  It is more accurately 'using the rules as they are intended', which is to help adjudicate situations expected to commonly occur.  Secondarily, the rules are in place to assist the referee in setting up situations in which the players interact with the game and associated milieu via their avatars or 'tokens'.Primarily, this means that my Rogue will know that climbing a slippery wall will have a -10 penalty at my table, and if I play a Rogue at someone else's table, that same slippery wall will have that same -10 penalty.  If the penalty is greater, non-existant, or is a +10 instead, I will have to re-adjust my expectations of how things work.  Essentially, I will have to learn a new game that is similar to the one I know.  It may sound some degree of adversarial when the DM says "The lock has a DC of 75".  In fact, what it tells me is that this lock is exceptionally hard to pick, or the DM doesn't want people in there.  If I decide to try picking that lock, I know how to calculate my odds based on the skills and equipment my Rogue possesses.  But that lock will be the same challenge for any Rogue, and will be the same challenge across any table.  The very opposite of 'adversarial'.On the other hand, if everyone has to demonstrate how their skill is applicable to the task at hand, that will not only increase handle time, it turns into a legalistic system, where the player(s) and the DM are deciding the appropriateness of a skill, while the other players determine the validity of the points.  Even if the DM simply allows most attempts of any particular skill, the other players (jury) are simply building up a body of 'precedent' while the 'defence' (DM) accepts most deals offered by the 'prosecution' (player).Western legal traditions are anything but 'non-adversarial'.</blockquote>

Verification