Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9516549" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Yes, sure. No disagreement worth mentioning here. (I also think skill challenges would have been way more popular if they had managed to explain them better from the get go. I still don't think DMG2 explanation is very good or clear enough, but it still miles better than what we originally got. Not that I would personally still much care for them.)Yes! And I don't think it is clear cut at all. For example one might set up something that at the moment seems like flavour, but later becomes an advantage. (And does it matter if they intended to do it that way, or whether it was just a coincidence?)Yeah, sure.I think it was and advantage in two ways. First, I think from the context it was clear, that finding the item was something the characters desired, so help towards that was an obvious advantage. But second, and what I think would have been ever bigger advantage, was that it setup this new powerful tool, this new avenue for doing things. Now every time there is a problem, trying to convince Odin to sort it out is an option. This is something I as a GM am rather cautious about, as go-to-tactics are not generally good for gameplay in my opinion.I feel players main avenue for changing the situation should be via the actions of their characters, not by framing new elements. That's the GM's job.Isn't that pretty much what my last sentence said? That in absence of an overseer, the game needs to have rules and guidelines for this?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson Longinus, post: 9516549, member: 7025508"] Yes, sure. No disagreement worth mentioning here. (I also think skill challenges would have been way more popular if they had managed to explain them better from the get go. I still don't think DMG2 explanation is very good or clear enough, but it still miles better than what we originally got. Not that I would personally still much care for them.) Yes! And I don't think it is clear cut at all. For example one might set up something that at the moment seems like flavour, but later becomes an advantage. (And does it matter if they intended to do it that way, or whether it was just a coincidence?) Yeah, sure. I think it was and advantage in two ways. First, I think from the context it was clear, that finding the item was something the characters desired, so help towards that was an obvious advantage. But second, and what I think would have been ever bigger advantage, was that it setup this new powerful tool, this new avenue for doing things. Now every time there is a problem, trying to convince Odin to sort it out is an option. This is something I as a GM am rather cautious about, as go-to-tactics are not generally good for gameplay in my opinion. I feel players main avenue for changing the situation should be via the actions of their characters, not by framing new elements. That's the GM's job. Isn't that pretty much what my last sentence said? That in absence of an overseer, the game needs to have rules and guidelines for this? [/QUOTE]

Verification