Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5776127" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is also very contentious.For example: in a game without climbing mechanics, how does my guy climb a wall? The GM describes the wall to me, I explain what my guy is doing - what equipment he is using, what training he is relying on, etc - and then I either succeed or I don't, as the GM see appropriate. Or, perhaps, the GM assigns a chance to succeed, and dice are rolled.Combat could be done in just the same way: the GM describes my guy's opponent, the fearsome jaws and bulging muscles etc, and I explain how mu guy is going to beat that opponent (maybe, Tarzan-style, I'm going to wedge a bit of wood in it's mouth to hold it's jaws open, then wrestle it to the ground with a hold around it's neck). Again, perhaps the GM assigns a chance to succeed (maybe I get a +2 bonus for thinking of the whole mouth-wedge thing) and dice are rolled.For me, at least, whether I want to resolve conflict through free narration, by GM-heavy crunch-light mechanics, or by the sort of complex mechanics that 4e uses to resolve combat, is not dependent on whether it's combat or "roleplaying". It's about where I want the focus of my game to be (personally, for example, I don't want very crunchy shopping mechanics because I hate GMing shopping trips) and the sort of play experience I want the action resolution rules to deliver.</blockquote>