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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5966543" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Which, as far as I know, depends largely on DM fiat to set the actual DCs (not great for player agency, in my opinion) or say what can even be attempted (also not great for player agency, in my opinion).The mechanic gives you some narrative control by allowing you to exercise some story power. They do things like allow you to reroll (minimum of 11-20 on the d20), eliminate fatigue, gain a feat momentarily, expand a power for a turn, etc. At the GM's permission, you can also use them for other purposes (I let my players say "I conveniently have this on hand" by spending a Hero Point, for example).But, the uses are usually rather well defined, and generally only grant "gonzo" effects by utilizing the system. For example, you might use a Hero Point to expand your mind reading ability to blast somebody's mind (the mechanics on how to do this are clear and laid out), but it's only gonzo because the powers were gozno to begin with, not because the Hero Point made them that way.This is a good point. I suppose there could be different charts for each level of genre (gritty to gonzo), but that'd be cumbersome. While a rules light system handles this and gritty well, it doesn't give much reliable control over shaping the story to the players (without DM permission).It doesn't need to become management of magical resources (it need not consume resources), but it is more operational in nature (my preferred method of player agency in fantasy gaming). Obviously this is a strong area where our tastes diverge.I do see a difference.With "objective" DCs, a player can look at the book, see that the DC is 15, see that his bonus is +7, and make an informed decision on whether or not he can make that check. And, very importantly, he can do this in every game he plays in that runs close to RAW. It's a safe assumption for him.With "scaling" DCs, a player needs to hope that his DM allows him to perform an action (you'd say "no" if the PC was heroic and not paragon), and then is at his mercy as to the DC (you made it a Hard DC).Sure, if the DC is 35 and he only gets +10, he can't make it; that's as good as a "no" from the DM. However, the difference is that he knows what his PC is capable of and isn't capable of without having to get permission from the DM. This enables him, as a player, to reliably shape the story by utilizing his reliable abilities against DCs he is well aware of as a player. It's not reliant on the DM, and there's much, much less "Mother May I" approach to this style of play.Well, kind of, yes (my game utilizes things like Knowledges and the Assess skill to determine DCs, uncover facts, and the like, so as to give more information to the PC in-game, and the player out-of-game).This, however, strikes me as a lesser form of player agency, because the DCs aren't usually as transparent, nor, more importantly, do they seem as reliable. And reliable DCs top transparent DCs when it comes to player agency.I do the same. Sometimes I'll say "the DC is X" when they're going to do something like climb a wall, other times I won't say what the DC is when they need to negotiate with the guard captain.Again, though, if the players know the DC to climb these sorts of walls (with modifiers for these different conditions) are these DCs, then they can reliably build a PC that can climb well. If the formula for negotiating is known to the players, they can reliably guestimate what the DC might be, and then judge whether or not to take the risk based on that knowledge (whether you metagame to make this decision is a side issue; you can easily use a mechanic like a Knowledge or Assess check to gather the "DC" in game).By giving reliable DCs with solid rules on how to hit those DCs, you empower the player to reliably shape the story in the way that they chose to express their interest. That is, if they've invested in negotiation skills, then they obviously would like to engage the game on at least that level, and they can do so reliably by using "objective" DCs.Sometimes. You said that you would have said "no" to your player if they were heroic tier.Yes, players can use even untrained skills with a chance of success, but the viability of that has been contested (one PC might get -1 to an untrained check to another PC's +10 bonus), and it can remain valid with an "objective" system if the DCs don't scale too high. My players often engage in skills they're not heavily invested in, they just don't expect the level of success that they'd get if they invested more.I agree that it can definitely lead that direction. Again, it's why I like "objective" DCs; everyone knows where they stand, and by letting the dice fall where they may, you can have a very enjoyable game where everyone can reliably affect the story in the ways they intend to. There is no reliance on the DM to allow you to thrust your hands into the forge; on my end, I'd rather look up the Strength check DCs, check my Strength score, and then try it after knowing my luck (probably gauged in-game through a skill check).Obviously it's a different approach from what you prefer, but it clearly allows for story control in the hands of the player, in my mind. And that's one reason I really, really like it. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification