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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bawylie" data-source="post: 6512382" data-attributes="member: 6776133">Yuck. Well first off, my okay doesn't look like that. Once a player notices a trap, I describe it. How it works, what it will do. Then I ask what they do. I need to know what they want and how they go about achieving what they want. It's entirely possibly that how they do it means it will automatically succeed or fail. In any case, I employ my judgment as to whether or not their action seems easy, moderately hard, or hard to achieve. Sometimes, that criteria is based on the physical attempt itself (say, lifting a heavy portcullis). Sometimes it's situational, such as holding open a portcullis long enough for 8 people to get under it. What I'm getting at is this - I don't design medium or hard tasks. I set obstacles in my players' paths. I assign DCs based on their goals and approaches to those obstacles. The obstacles themselves are inert - having no inherent difficulty. It's only the outcome of the interaction between the player and the obstacle that needs some resolution (and only if that outcome is uncertain). The approach to the problem is my yardstick. Sometimes physical reality is a consideration - sometimes political reality - but the DC isn't inherent.  Scaling a wall doesn't have a DC. Scaling a wall unharmed in 6 seconds while defenders rain arrows on you does. Talking to a nobleman has no difficultly. Convincing that nobleman to back your high risk venture without any real assurances does. And how you convince him affects that DC (bribes, intimidation, blackmail, charm, magical compulsion). If I set a DC before I know what you're doing, I'm taking from you the ability to decide how you overcome a problem. and truly, your approach to any problem may have nothing to do at all with the relationship of bodies and forces.</blockquote>

Verification