Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7310920" data-attributes="member: 82106">Of course, I would rather change the whole practice of 4e...A technique like 'delay onset' would grant some sort of narrative change (delaying the application of effects of an affliction) which in turn provides a more advantageous check scenario for the PC or another character in the 'save him from the poison' challenge. In the Crouching Tiger scenario it gives the Jen character advantage in her attempt to find the antidote in time (and in this case perhaps it wouldn't even be possible without the delay at all, forcing some other sub-par course of action like an unassisted Heal check that has little chance of success). Even so the challenge fails and Li Mu Bai passes away, but such is his destiny. In fact you might even consider this simply an element of larger challenge 'Defeat the Jade Fox' in which the Li Mu Bai character ups the stakes; after failing to block the poison needles he utilizes an Inspiration point to accept the poison himself, thus risking death, to save Shu Lien (or maybe it was Jen, I forget exactly). At this point his survival hinges on level of success. He uses Delay Onset to give Jen an advantage on the final check of the challenge to establish his survival and she fails, so he dies (partial success). The original terms of the challenge dictated that JEN die on partial success, Li Mu Bai simply changed the terms, upping the PC stakes (Jen being an NPC presumably since they are in conflict with her). This sort of process fits better with the aims of 4e than its actual sort of halfway dramatic techniques where you still have the weird simulationist kind of outcomes that are entirely arbitrated by checks and don't account for character's motivations and goals, yet the game is SUPPOSED to be story-centered in intent. I'm sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has a better way of articulating this, he's got fine lecturing techniques!</blockquote>

Verification