Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 4088816" data-attributes="member: 386">Hey Derren;I think I get where you're coming from, and it's cool that you know these mechanics are probably not for you.  Let me tell you why I like them.First of all, when you have a system like this it adds some focus on the actions in the game.  One roll often feels "too small", you know?  For some climactic encounters, you want to make a couple of rolls, spend more "screen time" on the conflict.Now, you don't need to make rolls - you could resolve the conflict freeform.  I like rolling the dice because they are impartial, do a better job of reflecting character ability than I can, they add tension because we don't know how the dice are going to roll out, and they often generate surprising results!Another thing I like about rolling dice, at least in the way I do it, is that it creates a turning point.  The die roll will resolve the conflict - or at least this little part of it, if we're making a bunch of rolls.  Each die roll needs to mean something: success (or moving towards the player's goal) or failure (or moving away from the goal).Okay, moving on:We have our conflict in the game reality.  The PCs want to escape from Sembia, and it's not going to be easy.  We know we're going to roll some dice.  Now we get creative and into the game.  The player looks over his sheet, considers the situation, and tries to think of ways he can use his best skills to solve his PC's problems.  This is great, because it allows the player to really get creative solving the problem - using player skill - but we're still using the character's abilities to determine success.Now the player tries to use a skill: "I want to use Diplomacy to talk a princess into smuggling me out of Sembia."  The DM considers the situation, and doesn't think this applies - he's in an alley right now, with guards hot on his tail!  He doesn't have the time to sit down for tea.  The DM is still the guy with the authority to say what the game world is like.  It's good, I think, to have that authority rest in one person.So the player changes his action: "Okay, I am going to make a Climb check so that I can climb into a princess' garden."  I like this because as DM, I don't have the entire city statted up - I don't want to have to turn to page whatever to see if a princess lives there, and if one does, would she be in the garden, and if so, what her reaction would be to having a guy drop in on her?  All of that we can resolve with the Climb check.Resolution can look like this:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If the roll is successful, the PC leaves the guards behind, the princess is there, and the PC can Diplomatize her.  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it's a failure, she's not there, and the guards gain a little ground.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it's an easy failure, she's not there, but a mean old crone is.  She triggers an Alarm whistle and the guards zero in on the PC.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it's an easy success, the princess is there.  (assuming that easy successes don't add to the total successes you need)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it's a hard success, the princess is there, and she's got a big case of "bad-boy" syndrome.  She sees the PC as a great way to get back at her daddy.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it's a hard failure - probably the same thing as the normal failure.</li> </ul>Look at what we've done here, in terms of game-play.  In the big success/big failure cases, we've just made the game a lot more interesting.  We've introduced an NPC.  The old crone, you could decide later on, might be someone powerful that the PCs need some help from.  The bad-boy loving princess is a huge source of conflict and adventure!Okay.  Now let's say we've resolved all our rolls for this extended conflict.  The PC has either failed to escape unseen or succeeded.  But, because it's not a binary condition, we can interpret the resolution in surprising new ways that can increase tension in the game!  Look at how the extended conflict resolved in the example of play from above.  It leads directly to another encounter.  This is great because we see that the actions the PCs took had consequences.  Nothing adds to a vibrant gaming experience like that!So, because of the things I've mentioned here, that's why it looks like I'm going to like this system.If I was running this 4e game, I'd say: "Look, there's a dead-end here on the map.  You can't get through here."Player: "Can I make a Streetwise check to see if I remember that there's a secret door there?"DM: "No, sorry, there isn't one."*Player: "Hmm... okay, I'll make a Climb check to get out.  Crap, it's not as good as Streetwise.  Oh well; shouldn't have boxed myself into this corner!  At least I get the +2 bonus from that previous successful check."DM: "Yeah - that +2 is from you being so quick that you have extra time to climb the wall."* - I can see the DM saying that there isn't a secret door being a problem, though.  Maybe you could handle it like this:Player: "Can I make a Streetwise check to see if I remember that there's a secret door there?"DM: "Sure."  DM knows that there isn't a secret door, but success will mean that he gets a +2 because he doesn't spend any time looking (or he finds something to aid his next roll), while failure means a -2 because he wastes too much time.You don't have to change game reality based on the rolls, though - except for the reality that the PCs have either succeded or failed.  The thing that might be bothering you is that these rolls resolve success, instead of the DM.  Is that the case?</blockquote>

Verification