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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 2386391" data-attributes="member: 12037">Trying not to use the world "railroading" becuase I don't want to derail the thread (pun intended) over what is and is not railroading, I'll try to clarify.I'm saying if player strength is largely irrelevant to whether or not the PCs succeed or fail at a strength related ability, then the system has failed in a degree, in my eyes. The amount the character can lift doesn't have to be front and center, but it should be quantifiable in some way lest the ability to use said strength fall out of the players' hands.Bring it to something else. Say that there is a pit blocking the PCs and there is no jump resolution system. If the GM wants the players to be able to jump it, then they can jump it, and if the GM doesn't want them to be able to to jump it then they can't. Now it is true that a DM in D&D could just make it huge or small, but there are many points in between. The monk character might be able to jump extremely far, whereas the paladin in full plate can't make it at all. At this point, player choices have a real impact on the outcome of their actions. There's more struggle, more suspense, and more satisfaction over success, to me personally, in this type of scenario.So, playstyle difference. In the end, I'll play what makes me have more fun, which for me is a rules-heavy system. Other people will play what they prefer, which might be a rules-lite system, or no system at all (as someone pointed out message board roleplaying with no rules are extremely popular).Now, if you disagree with the premise, then I'm all ears. This is, of course, all oppinion.</blockquote>

Verification