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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Empirate" data-source="post: 6162608" data-attributes="member: 78958">Oh man, game mechanics nowadays! In so many of those 'new school' RPGs, people get to decide stuff that happens to their characters... how can that possibly work? I'll never really get it, I guess.This houserule simply doesn't reflect what I expect from my D&D  game. I happen to like mechanics that don't give people the choice whether they want to be tripped after whoever did the tripping succeeded on their roll! If I want to play FATE, I will do that instead, it's much better  at this kind of thing. I've been there, though, and didn't much like it  after overcoming an initial enthusiastic craze.How about some good old simulationist gaming? Helps immersion, you know. However abstract the rules are, having them be a vehicle for a simulated in-game reality strikes me as much, much more desirable than having them be a vehicle for fulfilling somebody's metagame fantasies.Another thing:I simply can't state it often enough, but D&D 3.5 combat maneuvers were actually fine. There's no call for changing them around. Sure, they're a bit complicated (but not really complex). But they're nowhere near as complicated as other subsystems I could name (*cough*spellcasting*cough*). I didn't much care either way about the changes PF brought, but I think they're fine, too. Streamlining combat maneuvers didn't strike me as exactly necessary - but it doesn't detract from the game and speeds up the rolling, so why not?But this houserule? "Make an attack, and if you want stuff to happen, that stuff will indeed happen, but only by consensus with your target." No. Just no.</blockquote>

Verification