Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5729757" data-attributes="member: 27160">Yeah, I can kind-of see the attraction of a &quot;universal player character agency&quot; system where the players are always the ones who roll the dice, using things like &quot;passive bluff&quot; for NPCs so that they become sort of static challenges as foils for the players to pit themselves against.&nbsp; Having one side in a contest fixed lessens the &quot;swinginess&quot; and having the players always be the &quot;active rolling party&quot; gives a strong feel of player-driven action.On the other hand, though, the DM is a player, too.&nbsp; There is value to having a world setting that is active and independent of the players - and I think an element of this is the ability to do secret things, things that may surprise the players as well as the characters and increase the level of challenge due to the cunning and proactivity of the non-player creatures and organisations.On balance, I think I prefer to have NPCs as active, rather than just passive, agents in the world, and I think having them roll for successes unknown to the players is a useful part of that.Again, I know what you mean; I don't like challenges that are specifically parsed such that the PCs abilities are sufficient to succeed at any of the possible paths designed for the scenario at hand.&nbsp; At the same time, though, the whole &quot;character level&quot; thing is contrived in the extreme.&nbsp; The idea that Epic level monsters only take on Epic level characters, or confine themselves to &quot;Epic level locations&quot; is, viewed from a neutral perspective, an outlandishly unlikely scenario.The entire game of D&amp;D is, and always has been from the days of &quot;dungeon levels&quot; and &quot;wilderness areas&quot;, somewhat contrived in this respect.&nbsp; It is what, to my mind, really defines D&amp;D as a &quot;Gamist&quot; supporting (i.e. about presenting appropriately difficult challenges to be &quot;stepped up to&quot; by the players) rather than a &quot;Simulationist&quot; supporting (i.e. designed to model or &quot;simulate&quot; some particular imaginary world as it is explored) system, at its heart.In practical terms, therefore, I ignore - or, at least, do not reference - the PC's passive scores as I design, but I do use them during play when the &quot;non-player creatures&quot; have opportunity to enact some active plan of their own of which, at first at least, the players are unaware.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5729757, member: 27160"] Yeah, I can kind-of see the attraction of a "universal player character agency" system where the players are always the ones who roll the dice, using things like "passive bluff" for NPCs so that they become sort of static challenges as foils for the players to pit themselves against. Having one side in a contest fixed lessens the "swinginess" and having the players always be the "active rolling party" gives a strong feel of player-driven action. On the other hand, though, the DM is a player, too. There is value to having a world setting that is active and independent of the players - and I think an element of this is the ability to do secret things, things that may surprise the players as well as the characters and increase the level of challenge due to the cunning and proactivity of the non-player creatures and organisations. On balance, I think I prefer to have NPCs as active, rather than just passive, agents in the world, and I think having them roll for successes unknown to the players is a useful part of that. Again, I know what you mean; I don't like challenges that are specifically parsed such that the PCs abilities are sufficient to succeed at any of the possible paths designed for the scenario at hand. At the same time, though, the whole "character level" thing is contrived in the extreme. The idea that Epic level monsters only take on Epic level characters, or confine themselves to "Epic level locations" is, viewed from a neutral perspective, an outlandishly unlikely scenario. The entire game of D&D is, and always has been from the days of "dungeon levels" and "wilderness areas", somewhat contrived in this respect. It is what, to my mind, really defines D&D as a "Gamist" supporting (i.e. about presenting appropriately difficult challenges to be "stepped up to" by the players) rather than a "Simulationist" supporting (i.e. designed to model or "simulate" some particular imaginary world as it is explored) system, at its heart. In practical terms, therefore, I ignore - or, at least, do not reference - the PC's passive scores as I design, but I do use them during play when the "non-player creatures" have opportunity to enact some active plan of their own of which, at first at least, the players are unaware. [/QUOTE]

Verification