Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6195350" data-attributes="member: 336">Why would it?&nbsp; As the DM you are the eyes, ears, and &quot;knowledge&quot; base for the characters.&nbsp; The DM IS the filter/interface to the game world/campaign.&nbsp; If as a DM, you don't think it appropriate for a level 1 character to be able to accomplish something, within the campaign, you let the player know what his character knows/sees/etc. - that what he would be attempting is beyond his capabilities/training/knowledge at this time.&nbsp; If a character wants to jump the width of the Grand Canyon the player should know, from the DM communicating to him, how he (the character) views the odds.&nbsp; 0% chance of success is a valid percentage, and they should be aware of it.If you can imagine it you can try it, does not mean that they are going to be successful.&nbsp; That was the first thing I mentioned - attemptable, though you may not succeed.&nbsp; Attempting to jump the width of the Grand Canyon has a 0% chance of success.&nbsp; So that is what the DM should communicate to the player.As explained above, a player might think &quot;Oh, my wizard can do X!&quot;&nbsp; The DM should let him (player) know if that is true or not within the campaign.&nbsp; The player should be communicating his desire to do something (in the metagame or the game world sense),&nbsp; the DM should communicate to the player (also in a metagame or game world sense) what he'd know from the character's perspective (world perspective).&nbsp; That would corroborate whether his assumption is correct or not.What I found &quot;refreshing&quot; about the way 4e allows the DM to handle this is that it gives the DM the framework/tools to make &quot;informed decisions&quot; very quickly.&nbsp; Then I can communicate those &quot;informed decisions&quot; to the players.&nbsp; So they can also make &quot;informed decisions.&quot;&nbsp; It also provides me a framework that I can use to challenge the characters from Level 1 to Level 30.&nbsp; When I started running D&amp;D, close to when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I also had to make those &quot;informed decisions&quot; on the fly.&nbsp; However, they were only informed by what I thought was appropriate.&nbsp; So if I assigned a 30% chance of success to a task it was simply a number I pulled out of thin air.&nbsp; Sometimes this was based on some experience.&nbsp; Many times it was based on no experience at all.&nbsp; So it was always a &quot;gut-feel decision&quot; rather than an &quot;informed&quot; one.&nbsp; When 3.x came around and assigned static numbers to the decision it gave me an adequate framework to go on.&nbsp; However there were always those cases where the static DCs made absolutely no sense.&nbsp; Specially as the characters leveled up, and as the opposition leveled up.&nbsp; A good example of where this did not work is in the Tumble skill and the static DC to avoid attacks of opportunity.&nbsp; What 4e provided to me was a framework/tool and a scaling level that allowed that particular task to be more difficult if the opposition was more challenging.I might still be making &quot;gut-feel decisions&quot;, but at least they are more &quot;informed&quot; with respect to the underlying design of the game.&nbsp; Like you said, that does not unburden me, specifically from the responsibilities of being a DM, but it actually does free me a lot more.&nbsp; I'm still running the game in a very similar manner as I was many years ago, but now my &quot;rulings&quot; make more sense from the game's design perspective, and from the campaign world perspective.&nbsp; YMMV</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 6195350, member: 336"] Why would it? As the DM you are the eyes, ears, and "knowledge" base for the characters. The DM IS the filter/interface to the game world/campaign. If as a DM, you don't think it appropriate for a level 1 character to be able to accomplish something, within the campaign, you let the player know what his character [B]knows/sees/etc.[/B] - that what he would be attempting is beyond his capabilities/training/knowledge at this time. If a character wants to jump the width of the Grand Canyon the player should know, [B]from the DM communicating to him[/B], how he (the character) views the odds. 0% chance of success is a valid percentage, and they should be aware of it. If you can imagine it you can try it, does not mean that they are going to be successful. That was the first thing I mentioned - [B]attemptable, though you may not succeed[/B]. Attempting to jump the width of the Grand Canyon has a 0% chance of success. So that is what the DM should communicate to the player. As explained above, a player might think "Oh, my wizard can do X!" The DM should let him (player) know if that is true or not within the campaign. The player should be [B]communicating[/B] his desire to do something (in the metagame or the game world sense), the DM should [B]communicate[/B] to the player (also in a metagame or game world sense) what he'd know from the character's perspective (world perspective). That would corroborate whether his assumption is correct or not. What I found "refreshing" about the way 4e allows the DM to handle this is that it gives the DM the framework/tools to make "informed decisions" very quickly. Then I can communicate those "informed decisions" to the players. So they can also make "informed decisions." It also provides me a framework that I can use to challenge the characters from Level 1 to Level 30. When I started running D&D, close to when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I also had to make those "informed decisions" on the fly. However, they were only informed by what I thought was appropriate. So if I assigned a 30% chance of success to a task it was simply a number I pulled out of thin air. Sometimes this was based on some experience. Many times it was based on no experience at all. So it was always a "gut-feel decision" rather than an "informed" one. When 3.x came around and assigned static numbers to the decision it gave me an adequate framework to go on. However there were always those cases where the static DCs made absolutely no sense. Specially as the characters leveled up, and as the opposition leveled up. A good example of where this did not work is in the Tumble skill and the static DC to avoid attacks of opportunity. What 4e provided to me was a framework/tool and a scaling level that allowed that particular task to be more difficult if the opposition was more challenging. I might still be making "gut-feel decisions", but at least they are more "informed" with respect to the underlying design of the game. Like you said, that does not unburden me, specifically from the responsibilities of being a DM, but it actually does free [B]me[/B] a lot more. I'm still running the game in a very similar manner as I was many years ago, but now my "rulings" make more sense from the game's design perspective, and from the campaign world perspective. YMMV [/QUOTE]

Verification