Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7797015" data-attributes="member: 16814">If we were in a slightly different game, I'd be cheering this approach.  It's putting some authorial control into the hands of the players, and that can be a powerful thing.  However, this works best in systems that use a mechanical resolution mechanic designed with this kind of play in mind, and 5e isn't that kind of game.  Its resolution system is too game-able to unduly weight such outcomes, and it lacks a useful reinforcement mechanism for formal stake setting.  Can you do it anyway?  Yup, and maybe even well, but you'll be constantly tending to the system to make it work, and likely end up with a set of table rules to really make it work.5e is just too prep heavy.  The encounter balance maths are too tight and it's too easy to tip the game over into a tailspin by playing with that balance on the fly in the middle of encounters.  Even if you just eyeball stuff, the encounter maths still lurk behind it all and you might accidentally tip a challenge over into the unwinnable.  It's a lot to balance and consider while in the heat of play.  Other systems that are built with this kind of play in mind use different balancing systems so that the changes are easily manageable in play.That said, I applaud the thinking here -- it's subversive and trying to do new things with the game.</blockquote>