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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 4089236" data-attributes="member: 59248">*sigh*As LostSoul mentioned, it's a CONFLICT RESOLUTION system.  Looks like a pretty good one, too.In a task resolution system, the GM can run the game in circles as the PCs solve task after task, none of which, it turns out, are relevant to their actual goals.  In a conflict resolution system, rolls relevant to the conflict contractually move the conflict forward or backward; it's not "unrealistic" -- it's the rules.If the x vx y system is "unrealistic", so are hit points -- because both are conflict-resolution abstractions which sacrifice granularity for the ability of players to see how well they are doing and measure how much what they're trying will accomplish their goals.If anything, Darren appears to be equating the system to a specific style of illusionism -- where if you make a skill check, the universe favors you, if you fail, it opposes you.  In fact, however, that style of illusionism has always been around and is far -more- harmful without a structure like this.  Moreover, it is entirely possible to run this style of system without any such illusionism, having current position indicate what is, and isn't an interesting skill check.3.5, The players try to find a pie:    Illusionism: Players roll Knowlege(local) to find a pie.  Since the GM doesn't want them having a pie, if they succeed, they'll find out there aren't any pies in town; if they fail, they can't figure out where the pies are (but the villains still get pie).   Detailism: The GM has decided there is no pie in town.  If the players succeed, they find out there aren't any pies in town.  If they fail, they get no useful info.  Either way, it's a waste of time.4e: the players try to find a pie:   Illusionism: Players roll Streetwise to find a pie.  If they succeed, they get closer to the pie (the GM has accepted the challenge, so there must be pie as a possibility).  If they fail, there is no pie where they're looking, and they waste time.   Detailism: There is no pie in town.  If they players succeed, they get closer to finding the pie (ie, they learn there is no pie HERE and learn where pie might be, and can use appropriate skills (like riding) to progress further).  If they fail, they waste time looking for a pie here, and the skills needed to find a pie remain approximately the same, as the situation hasn't changed.In 3.5, succeeding on one part of a complex skill check means you've...improved things.  Or maybe not, if the GM doesn't want you to.  In 4e, you know how much you've improved things, and narration should move you that much toward your goal, or worstened things, and narration should move you that much further toward -failing- your goal.  But it's just a rule -- like Hit Points. Do you complain "Hey, that axe blow to the arm shouldn't have taken me toward dying -- all my other wounds were from magic which already disabled that arm, so it doesn't make any sense that I could still take damage there?"</blockquote>

Verification