Action resolution (as per April 24 Rule of Three)
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
The point about lower modifiers is a good one. I wonder if it will be borne out. (If they're still using the 3E/4e stat bonuses, there are some signficant gaps just from that alone.)
That's what I'm wondering about - I don't really see how what WotC is describing rules out the scenario you describe. But maybe there will be more work done not just on determining the inputs to action resolution, but on explaining exactly how the adjudication process is meant to work, and why it can't work without the player explaining what his/her PC is doing.
I agree that it does.
And what WotC have described so far doesn't strike me as any more self-enforcing or toothy than what 4e offers - which is, I would say, at best moderately toothy.
Yeah, I agree that this is quite clever. Not that all players do this, but it means you can't say "I'm using X skill". You have no choice but to say "I'm crushing a mug."
It's subtle, but I think it's clever. For some groups, it won't make any difference at all (those who already describe their actions rather than just naming the skill); for others, it will.
It's an example of game design affecting playstyle; I've always maintained that the rules affect the "feel" of a game (despite stringent argument from some quarters), and I think this is a perfect example of this.
It's subtle, but I think it's clever. For some groups, it won't make any difference at all (those who already describe their actions rather than just naming the skill); for others, it will.
It's an example of game design affecting playstyle; I've always maintained that the rules affect the "feel" of a game (despite stringent argument from some quarters), and I think this is a perfect example of this.
But this is what's not clear to me at all. Like [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION]'s example, why can't you say "I'm using CHA to make the guy nice to me", or "I'm using INT to figure a way out of here", or "I'm using WIS to guess what she's thinking". Even "I'm using my STR to intimidate him."
The social skills are always a little harder in that regard.
But "I'm using STR to indimidate him" - while of course you could utter those words, presenting the rules in this way will help tend to encourage people to say "I'm crushing a mug".
The important point, I think, is that the PLAYER doesn't get to decide which ability score he's using. The DM tells him to make an ability check in response to his players' actions; the player doesn't say "I'm making an ability check", because unless the DM asks for one - he's not making an ability check.
Sure, it's not perfect. I don't think anyone is saying it's a magic enchamntment which changes the words players say. It's just a little extra thing which will help tend to encourage action descriptions. It may not work on everyone; it may not be necessary for everyone. But it'll certainly help some.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
On the RAW versus RAI versus RAP, put me down for this prediction: If they have copius, well-written, multiple examples of how they envision play happening, complete with extensive sidebar commentary--they may get something like the ability checks as an aid to play to work. If they don't, they won't.
Oh sure, per Morrus' point, they'll have some changes around the edges. But it is fairly plain to me since, oh 2000 or so, that at least half the people never read the directions--and of the ones that do, not all of them pay them any attention.
I think with a great character sheet, such an extensive example, and a DM that would read it, you could get at least fairly adequate play out of almost any group. Miss any of the three, and who knows what you'll get?
Oh sure, per Morrus' point, they'll have some changes around the edges. But it is fairly plain to me since, oh 2000 or so, that at least half the people never read the directions--and of the ones that do, not all of them pay them any attention.
I think with a great character sheet, such an extensive example, and a DM that would read it, you could get at least fairly adequate play out of almost any group. Miss any of the three, and who knows what you'll get?
Neonchameleon
Legend
They can. They aren't going to get very far at my table if they do. I'm going to ask them what they actually do. Which is what 4e says you should do.
Low int low wis can be fun too.
Oh, I think I'm definitely more towards the "I think the actual rules affect the way players interact with the game" end of the spectrum than you are. Different game systems definitely encourage different styles of play by nature of the rules themselves, in my opinion, not solely by what player/DM advice and examples are presented in the product.
But we can disagree. I'm just far further along the gradient of how much I think it affects things.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Maybe, though we might be closer on this than it first appears. Your point is how "system --> actual play". My point is how "explanation of system --> grasping of system".
D&D play, in particular, comes with a lot of baggage for people, which affects not only their tendencies as you said, but also their tendencies as I said.
Similar Threads
