Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5545278" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, this kind of illustrates why I'm not fond of the notion either. See, if the PC says to me &quot;hey, I'll go haggle for a better price on stone&quot; I WILL make it an SC, but I'll make it an adventure hook too (well, if I didn't want to then a skill check is OK too). The SC would maybe involve tracking down the thugs that extort money from the stone masons, etc. If you have some codified system for how much the stone costs for your castle then it just becomes a barrier. The player expects it to work a certain way, the DM doesn't feel encouraged to diverge from that and things become more mechanical and accounting based vs feeling more like an adventure.I mean I can see the desire to have some nice handy reference for some of that kind of stuff, but every time you make a rule you kill a bit more of the freeform aspect of RP. I think the 4e theory of 'rules for resolving conflict only' is wise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5545278, member: 82106"] Well, this kind of illustrates why I'm not fond of the notion either. See, if the PC says to me "hey, I'll go haggle for a better price on stone" I WILL make it an SC, but I'll make it an adventure hook too (well, if I didn't want to then a skill check is OK too). The SC would maybe involve tracking down the thugs that extort money from the stone masons, etc. If you have some codified system for how much the stone costs for your castle then it just becomes a barrier. The player expects it to work a certain way, the DM doesn't feel encouraged to diverge from that and things become more mechanical and accounting based vs feeling more like an adventure. I mean I can see the desire to have some nice handy reference for some of that kind of stuff, but every time you make a rule you kill a bit more of the freeform aspect of RP. I think the 4e theory of 'rules for resolving conflict only' is wise. [/QUOTE]

Verification