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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7596762" data-attributes="member: 22779">Not quite sure what you mean, but, if I'm following you, then yes, 5e combat is very much not the goal:approach method.  The players call for checks in combat.  The players call for virtually everything that isn't being done by an NPC.  The only real point that people made contrary to that was the notion that inexperienced players might need a DM to tell the player what to roll.Honestly, I didn't really think that that was a very good defense of goal:approach methodology.  If we only use it in combat if the players don't know what they're doing, then why do we then use it out of combat when the player does know what they are doing?Really, I think that's one of my bigger issues here.  Why use different methodologies in different parts of the game for task resolution?  We don't expect goal:approach in combat, so why do it out of combat?  And, really, even out of combat, it's unevenly applied.  Numerous skill uses are not predicated on DM adjudication - my PC can jump Str feet without a check for example.  Granted, 5e is a lot more loosey goosey about this sort of thing than 3e or 4e with a lot less standardization in 5e, but, the basic premise is the same.Essentially, I don't see what's actually being added to the game by doing the goal:approach method.  It wouldn't add anything to my game and would in fact be incredibly frustrating to my players if I insisted upon it.  I get that with new players it is a better way of doing it - and it really fits with the whole DM empowerment thing that 5e preaches.  What better way to control the game than to be able to control exactly when any player can do anything that doesn't involve swinging a sword?I'm just not interested in that level of DM empowerment.</blockquote>

Verification