Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 7030497" data-attributes="member: 6690511">[sblock="Perpetuation of slightly off-topic, thread-derailing argument"]I don't see why that'd be a problem, since resolution will consist of the DM resolving each action, one at a time, speaking aloud while the PCs listen. So, it wouldn't be much of an interruption to ask for a little clarification like that.I don't think it's adding an extra step. Declaring a conditional action is itself an extra step. I'm just moving that step to a different point in time (and, often, removing that step altogether). This seems like more of a clunky interruption. With my method, you're giving the player that exact same decision (a) less frequently, and (b) at a more natural time, i.e. when it actually matters. If anything, I'm trying to reduce the time it takes to declare actions--that's the main reason I'm looking for an alternative initiative system in the first place.To clarify: It's not just new players. I have multiple friends whom I've been gaming with for years, and they can still barely remember how to make an attack roll. These are smart people; they're not incapable of learning the rules, they just don't want to. They just want say "I hit the bad guy with my axe" and move on. That's the level of involvement they're comfortable with. But even if all the players are willing and able to play with conditional declaration, the low skill cap is problematic. I mean, a 'great' player will be no better at it than a 'good' player. It's just a mental calculation--you either get the correct answer, or you don't. The only reason you could get anything less than a perfect solution is if you make a mistake. The only reason you could make a mistake is if you didn't spend enough time and effort thinking about it. In other words, the optimal practice is to take more time before declaring your action.If the hardcore players are going to do it perfectly 99% of the time, why even waste the time and energy on it?If the casual players don't want to put the time and energy into it, why punish them for that?[/sblock]Point taken. I'm happy to continue this conversation, but it seems unlikely we're going to convince each other. We have such different goals for these rules, it makes more sense to split them than to combine them. I want to complete the project of codifying your system--it's helping me to understand it better; I hope it helps other people too. Maybe later I'll work on my own houserules of your (house)rules (lol).On that note:Ah, I missed that. So, "implicit delay" is a tool the DM can use to resolve actions in a more natural flow. Interesting. I'll put that in. Personally, I'm resistant to the idea of multiple delays because it might make the round feel longer than 6 seconds; have you encountered any problems with that?Are you OK with interrupting spells, or should that not even be a part of these rules yet?OK. I guess that's what I meant, I just wasn't sure how to express it as a rule. This helps.</blockquote>

Verification