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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9776990" data-attributes="member: 6667921">I agree about the risk of adding complexity. The real pitfall is when we try to solve mechanical problems with more mechanics. What I’m suggesting (and only briefly touched on in the essay) is a response to the narrative—something that breaks the mechanical loop without breaking the system itself. The option doesn’t exist organically within the rules, nor does it require houserules. When that orc lands a critical hit, the rogue’s “opportunity to act” isn’t a rule being invoked—it’s an invitation to the player. The GM recognizes an organic opening in the scene where that character could meaningfully respond, in character, without waiting for their turn. There’s no tactical advantage, no action economy exchange—just a chance to stay connected to the story as it unfolds.This ties directly into what you’re saying about GM pacing and facilitation. If we rely on mechanics to dictate when these narrative opportunities arise, we might as well be using a system built for it from the start. Adding such structures to D&D-style systems often creates friction instead of solving it. The key is the GM acting as a facilitator, not as another subsystem. It’s a skill that develops through feel and practice—less about codifying rules, more about knowing when the story is inviting player input.And I completely agree that not all tables are equal. Players bring different expectations, experiences, and appetites for complexity. No single solution will fit everyone. My goal isn’t to prescribe fixes—it’s to offer a different way of seeing the problem. These aren’t new ideas, but they’re not discussed enough in spaces where engagement is treated mostly as a pacing issue. Sometimes the fix isn’t to add more game to combat, but to bring more story into it. We just need to keep exploring ways to do that for those who aren’t satisfied with the current ones.</blockquote>

Verification