Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5896585" data-attributes="member: 54877">I think it is non-trivial to use Let it Ride and stakes/intent rigorously in 4E. The mechanics aren't there to support it, even if the advice was better. &nbsp;However, I have found it fairly easy to use in certain circumstances, as a kind of pseudo conflict resolution mechanic, with explicit stakes called out. It helps that the players in our group are already used to a heavy character/player separation. For example, the players often handle monsters and NPCs, and are &quot;in the know&quot; on things that their characters don't know. We routinely have so many &quot;secrets&quot; that it doesn't hurt if several of them are outed in order to enhance the roleplay sizzle now.&nbsp;Ultimately, I think stakes/intent is the essential metagame component, the polar opposite from deep immersion. If you like that sort of metagaming, might as well go for the full enchilada. If you don't, stakes are the last thing you would consider doing. We like it--so no big deal incorporating it on demand.&nbsp;So sometimes we will bypass the normal rules and go for mechanical resolution of a scene via negotiated party options. It might be a skill challenge. It might be a skill challenge plus some ad hoc stuff (e.g. ability checks, page 42 checks, skill checks outside the skill challenge as &quot;linked tests&quot;, etc.) Basically, we say what the party wants to do, define what will need to happen, agree what mechanics are used, and agree on consequences. Then the party makes their final plan, divides the responsibilities up, and the dice hit the table all at once.&nbsp;There's a certain charm to the traditional &quot;things started going bad, and then we tried to fix it, and it got worse,&quot; series of rolls. But there is also some fun in, &quot;we had a plan, we all went and did our thing, and when it went bad, it really went south in a hurry!&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; And of course when things go well, the second way is a very fast way to resolve the scene, without the plans making it anti-climatic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5896585, member: 54877"] I think it is non-trivial to use Let it Ride and stakes/intent rigorously in 4E. The mechanics aren't there to support it, even if the advice was better. However, I have found it fairly easy to use in certain circumstances, as a kind of pseudo conflict resolution mechanic, with explicit stakes called out. It helps that the players in our group are already used to a heavy character/player separation. For example, the players often handle monsters and NPCs, and are "in the know" on things that their characters don't know. We routinely have so many "secrets" that it doesn't hurt if several of them are outed in order to enhance the roleplay sizzle now. Ultimately, I think stakes/intent is the essential metagame component, the polar opposite from deep immersion. If you like that sort of metagaming, might as well go for the full enchilada. If you don't, stakes are the last thing you would consider doing. We like it--so no big deal incorporating it on demand. So sometimes we will bypass the normal rules and go for mechanical resolution of a scene via negotiated party options. It might be a skill challenge. It might be a skill challenge plus some ad hoc stuff (e.g. ability checks, page 42 checks, skill checks outside the skill challenge as "linked tests", etc.) Basically, we say what the party wants to do, define what will need to happen, agree what mechanics are used, and agree on consequences. [B]Then[/B] the party makes their final plan, divides the responsibilities up, and the dice hit the table all at once. There's a certain charm to the traditional "things started going bad, and then we tried to fix it, and it got worse," series of rolls. But there is also some fun in, "we had a plan, we all went and did our thing, and when it went bad, it really went south in a hurry!" :D And of course when things go well, the second way is a very fast way to resolve the scene, without the plans making it anti-climatic. [/QUOTE]

Verification