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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5950626" data-attributes="member: 10479">Naw, that explanation suggests equivalency in the methods.  I understand why a player might want to have fewer variable factors but that's why players are encouraged to avoid them if they can.  This is one of those situations that feels too much like bubblewrapping the corners. There are multiple points at which something requires resolution, and their could even be more depending on how complicated the narration becomes.  One is a roll against a static condition, the slippery floor slide, and the other is an opposed roll against an active opponent, grabbing someone's leg that doesn't want to be grabbed.  By claiming it is a penalty, you suggest there is an adversarial relationship between player and DM, which isn't the case.  Arguing at the table that the DM is trying to penalize a player would certainly bring such a game to a crawl.  It's not personal, it is just an adjudication of the situation based on the factors presented and utilizing only two types, one each, of standard resolution mechanic.  Adding in a plus ten for whatever reason seems like extra math for its own sake.  Why not just set the DC ten lower and do a straight roll?  Do Spinal Tap's amps really need to go up to eleven?  Straight roll versus DC and the opposed check are two of the simplest.  You could add more complicated resolution mechanics to the mix but I've yet to see a convincing argument.  Adjudication isn't "fiat" in any capricious sense, which often gets implied when that word is used.  What I've actually demonstrated is a comparison between early D&D and later-era D&D, and the former is considerably faster.  You do realize that this design discussion that WotC and the fans are having is about that very thing?  It has been framed as simple versus complex for whatever reason.  Of course, that isn't really a true assessment as a narrative and swiftly adjudicated so-called simple system can be quite complex in its narration.  What you accidentally point out in your comparison is the misrepresentation that one way is not complex but rather fraught with reliance on a DM who, heaven forbid, might suggest resolutions that cannot be foreseen and thus might be meant to harm someone character. This, of course, couldn't be further from the truth.  The fact of the matter is that good DMs, which is to say most DMs, strive for consistency.  Gaming with the same DM for any length of time will be marked by even faster play than the system, which is fast to begin with, portends. That implies that it is proven in 4E and I'd like to hear how you believe that to be the case.</blockquote>

Verification