Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5965696" data-attributes="member: 42582">Maybe. We'd have to look at how they do it.BW (as written, at least) uses &quot;objective&quot; (ie non-scaled) DCs and no &quot;genre logic&quot; adjudication. And emphasises player agency.HeroQuest revised (as written, at least) uses scaled DCs and &quot;genre logic&quot; adjudication. And emphasises player agency.I think that 4e, as written, is closer to HQ than BW in this particular respect, although there is a degree of incoherence in the presentation of the skill rules (in part related to the broader tension between 4e's two very different modes of conflict resolution - combat and skill challenges).The D&amp;Dnext playtest clearly uses &quot;objective&quot; DCs - and that's part of the implemenation of &quot;bounded accuracy&quot;. I've got nothing against that per se, although I think for gonzo fantasy the 4e/HQ approach is probably superior - especially because (in my view, and for the reasons I gave in my other thread) it makes it easier to incorporate improvised use of the wacky powers and abilities that D&amp;D PCs tend to have.But the playtest skill rules don't have anything else to support player agency within its action resolution framework (eg there is no Let it Ride, nothing analogous to BW's &quot;intent and task&quot;, etc). That is something that I would like to see. And it's not just as simple as implementing it myself. For example, &quot;intent and task&quot; and Let it Ride both work most naturally within a framework of scene-based play. And supporting scene-based play can be helped or hindered by other features of the game, like its rules involving the passage of time (durations, healing, movement, wandering monster checks, etc). 4e gets most of this right, for my purposes at least.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5965696, member: 42582"] Maybe. We'd have to look at how they do it. BW (as written, at least) uses "objective" (ie non-scaled) DCs and no "genre logic" adjudication. And emphasises player agency. HeroQuest revised (as written, at least) uses scaled DCs and "genre logic" adjudication. And emphasises player agency. I think that 4e, as written, is closer to HQ than BW in this particular respect, although there is a degree of incoherence in the presentation of the skill rules (in part related to the broader tension between 4e's two very different modes of conflict resolution - combat and skill challenges). The D&Dnext playtest clearly uses "objective" DCs - and that's part of the implemenation of "bounded accuracy". I've got nothing against that per se, although I think for gonzo fantasy the 4e/HQ approach is probably superior - especially because (in my view, and for the reasons I gave in my other thread) it makes it easier to incorporate improvised use of the wacky powers and abilities that D&D PCs tend to have. But the playtest skill rules don't have anything else to support player agency within its action resolution framework (eg there is no Let it Ride, nothing analogous to BW's "intent and task", etc). That is something that I would like to see. And it's not just as simple as implementing it myself. For example, "intent and task" and Let it Ride both work most naturally within a framework of scene-based play. And supporting scene-based play can be helped or hindered by other features of the game, like its rules involving the passage of time (durations, healing, movement, wandering monster checks, etc). 4e gets most of this right, for my purposes at least. [/QUOTE]

Verification