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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3793222" data-attributes="member: 42582">Sure. In this respect 3E brings D&D closer to games like RQ and RM. But that is still (in my view) quite a way away from 1st ed.The plate example is interesting - one way I handle that sort of case when GMing RM is to only mention a certain detail to those players whose characters succeed on a Perception skill check. But of course, if a player asks whether there is a plate in the room, and then decides to have her character look under it, no Perception roll is required. So the simulationist deployment of the mechanics has its limits.Agreed. But just as an example of the sort of issue I had in mind, that came up in a recent RM game: the players were planning an assault on a guardpost, and one of the PCs has ranks in Tactics (Siege Engineering & Fortifications). That aspect of the character build tells us that his PC should be able to plan the assault better than the player in fact is able to. As a GM, I decided to give him an indication of the number of guards such a post would typically contain, and some ideas as to a probable layout - the players then took those things into account in their planning.My view is that the more those aspects of character build rules (and action resolution rules, where appropriate - RM has very underdeveloped action resolution rules for knowledge skills) come into play, the less the game has a 1st ed feel, because the character and the character's abilities are defined more by what the numbers on the sheet say, and less by what the player actually does with the character in play.</blockquote>

Verification