Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7759161" data-attributes="member: 97077">I used to think this way until I realized that, coming off D&amp;D 3.5e, my D&amp;D 4e games were just not as good as they could be. At that point, somewhere around 2008 to 2009, I decided to do what I continue to do until this day: Change my approach depending on the game. When learning a new game, I set about examining every approach I'm using and questioning whether it is appropriate in the context of the game I'm now playing. Different games have different assumptions and rules that demand different approaches. If I'm running all games the same way, then it's very likely that I'm not running the game in the way it's intended to be experienced. So my D&amp;D 4e games are not like my D&amp;D 5e games. My Dungeon World games aren't like my D&amp;D 4e or 5e games. And so on. I change my approach to fit the game, not the other way around.That looks to me more like D&amp;D 4e thinking though. (Which is a game I love, mind you.) The D&amp;D 5e approach, based on the rules, would see the players trying to suss out the NPC's agenda and personal characteristics (personality trait, ideal, bond, and flaw) in an effort to adjust the NPC's attitude temporarily to something better than it currently is, for example, hostile to indifferent or indifferent to friendly. At that point, they can make an ask which is resolved, if necessary, with a Charisma check at DCs determined by the nature of the ask compared to the temporary attitude of the NPC. Charming the NPC skips the bit where the PCs need to suss out personal characteristics and agenda for advantage, but at a cost - you get what you want and you burn a bridge at the same time.I'd probably use D&amp;D 4e for such games because in my view the tactical choices in combats and skill challenges will offset the comparative lack of choices in this approach. This isn't a criticism of event-based adventures, of course. It's just about what I see as using the best tool for the job.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7759161, member: 97077"] I used to think this way until I realized that, coming off D&D 3.5e, my D&D 4e games were just not as good as they could be. At that point, somewhere around 2008 to 2009, I decided to do what I continue to do until this day: Change my approach depending on the game. When learning a new game, I set about examining every approach I'm using and questioning whether it is appropriate in the context of the game I'm now playing. Different games have different assumptions and rules that demand different approaches. If I'm running all games the same way, then it's very likely that I'm not running the game in the way it's intended to be experienced. So my D&D 4e games are not like my D&D 5e games. My Dungeon World games aren't like my D&D 4e or 5e games. And so on. I change my approach to fit the game, not the other way around. That looks to me more like D&D 4e thinking though. (Which is a game I love, mind you.) The D&D 5e approach, based on the rules, would see the players trying to suss out the NPC's agenda and personal characteristics (personality trait, ideal, bond, and flaw) in an effort to adjust the NPC's attitude temporarily to something better than it currently is, for example, hostile to indifferent or indifferent to friendly. At that point, they can make an ask which is resolved, if necessary, with a Charisma check at DCs determined by the nature of the ask compared to the temporary attitude of the NPC. Charming the NPC skips the bit where the PCs need to suss out personal characteristics and agenda for advantage, but at a cost - you get what you want and you burn a bridge at the same time. I'd probably use D&D 4e for such games because in my view the tactical choices in combats and skill challenges will offset the comparative lack of choices in this approach. This isn't a criticism of event-based adventures, of course. It's just about what I see as using the best tool for the job. [/QUOTE]

Verification