Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 5463612" data-attributes="member: 23935">I get the concept, but by taking the smear approach, the lockpicking skill can't be used as one of the attempts, because it's too easy to count as a success.&nbsp; So perhaps a generalised thievery to account for the whole office infiltration would be a single success.&nbsp; The rest of the successes would be encouraging the accidental discovery of the documents and persuading the populace that it isn't a frame.I guess it just seems odd to me that any tactic will have the same basic difficulty regardless of the surrounding circumstance and players' choice of approach.&nbsp; To my mind it reverses my natural thought process from &quot;What weakness can I exploit here?&quot;&nbsp; into &quot;What tactic plays to my stength here?&quot;&nbsp; I much prefer the former approach since it strongly encourages engagement with the game world as opposed to engagement with the PC.The system as presented doesn't appear to encourage strategic weakness in the challenge design.&nbsp; A DM can compensate on his own, for example, only allowing the challenge to occur once the external circumstances are brought into alignment or awarding automatic successes if a weakness is noticed and exploited, I suppose.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 5463612, member: 23935"] I get the concept, but by taking the smear approach, the lockpicking skill can't be used as one of the attempts, because it's too easy to count as a success. So perhaps a generalised thievery to account for the whole office infiltration would be a single success. The rest of the successes would be encouraging the accidental discovery of the documents and persuading the populace that it isn't a frame. I guess it just seems odd to me that any tactic will have the same basic difficulty regardless of the surrounding circumstance and players' choice of approach. To my mind it reverses my natural thought process from "What weakness can I exploit here?" into "What tactic plays to my stength here?" I much prefer the former approach since it strongly encourages engagement with the game world as opposed to engagement with the PC. The system as presented doesn't appear to encourage strategic weakness in the challenge design. A DM can compensate on his own, for example, only allowing the challenge to occur once the external circumstances are brought into alignment or awarding automatic successes if a weakness is noticed and exploited, I suppose. [/QUOTE]

Verification