Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6488258" data-attributes="member: 82106">But if you think about it, basically every ability a character has is reliant on some sort of challenge being present. You can't fight if there isn't an orc to kill any more than you can't track if there isn't an orc to track. You may be able to define a rough scale that says "this ability is more often employable in a range of situations than this other one is" so OK, 'Streetwise' is more niche than 'Melee Basic Attack' in some sense. The thing is, the game is always give and take where the GM presents some material and the players react to it, and back and forth. The players may present some desire they have which is unprovoked, "I want to build a castle" but there is a heavy element of it being just a reordering of the normal presentation, because the GM will still immediately be tasked with indicating how, where, when, and if said castle can be built and any checks required to build it might come into play.The only way to make the character's abilities truly 'active' is to give them authorial power so that the player of the barbarian can say "Grom is going to kill the huge ogre that just came through the door" and have the huge ogre appear in the narrative. There are games that do this, but D&D just isn't one of them. Players actions are always FUNDAMENTALLY reactive in a GM-centered game. I'm not really sure why 'active abilities' in a D&D-style game would be possible or desirable personally. I'm great with player initiative, and I run games that allow player narrative contribution sometimes, but I've actually found my D&D players don't LIKE it that much.</blockquote>

Verification