Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4092675" data-attributes="member: 32536">I can respect that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> To be honest, I am still wrapping my head around that one as well. I like involving players in that way, and it seems to be one of the few ways to make the penalty for losing an easy challenge and the benefit for accomplishing a difficult challenge fair to the players (I dislike adjudicating that kind of thing based on my own whims, and I am not sure how to do it otherwise), but it does bring up some issues.Well, this is where my own abstractions lead to a different result than your determinations. I would not know such a thing. In fact, I probably would not even know exactly where the PC is, how many guards are chasing him, or how far he is from the rest of the party. Instead, I would know a rough area of where things are likely to be, and anything which is not defined by a previous open decision on my part would have an even chance of being everywhere.I guess you can say I prefer a Quantum approach compared to your Newtonian one. Rather than keeping track of every character's exact state, I would just keep track of potential states.In other words, the guard captain did not teleport there. Instead, he had a certain probability of following any of the characters, and his position only matters once his position is already known by the players. Once that is established, he will not just randomly appear before any other PC unless he has a good reason to based on his last appearance, because he now has a determined place.Well, as I said above, I am still working this out and probably won't figure it out 100% until I own the 4E DMG and have run a game session or two, so I hope you will forgive me if my answers are a bit vague for now. But, I think the problem you are having with my example is that you are forgetting that any decision I make will be improvisational, not based on preparations. I would not lay out a list before starting of how various actions might work, I would just make them up on the fly.Certainly, it doesn't make sense for someone I mentioned was a normal guard earlier turned out to magically be the guard captain. In that case, I would come up with a different reason why the roll might be difficult and potentially rewarding, and there would be no logical reason at all to restrict the PC's options. Similarly, just because one player had an easy time negotiating with a corrupt guard does not mean that any other "easy" guards will also be corrupt. Instead, other skill checks might be based on other factors I invent to be unique to each case. As such, a few of the problems you state above are not actually relevant.Anyways, since D&D 4E is supposed to be a game about saying yes to players, I would not restrict a player from doing something at any point. Keeping things varied and interesting in the game is my job, after all, and it is better if I use my own creativity rather than restrict my player's. Well, I might make a rule that says you can't use the exact same skill twice in a row in the same skill encounter, but that would be just to keep things more interesting.</blockquote>

Verification