Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6195488" data-attributes="member: 6668292">This is exactly my point. You said "if you can imagine it, you can attempt it." If a player imagines something, he can't attempt it if you don't let him. As the DM, everything is filtered through you. At level 1, is something Easy, Moderate, Hard, or Impossible? Players don't really know until they consult you.This is what makes me say that the system is light, but it's not really liberating. In my RPG, there's a lot of stuff written down on which skill can do what task. Most everything players will ask about will already be addressed. The DCs are listed, and are set, regardless of level. The upside to this is that players can consult things without relying on me, build their PCs with specific, achievable goals in mind, etc. It does not leave any pressure on me, as DM; it's all in the book.However, this means that we consult the books a lot more than I need to in 4e, so it's not really more liberating for me. It's basically a wash. Neither method is more liberating, but both have their ups and downs. Which is what I was saying.Exactly. Filtered through me. While the system is lighter, it's no more liberating, in my experience so far. The DM needs to remember their rulings, remain consistent, and be skilled enough to slowly alter them as the PCs go up in level (and Tier). It's not bad, but it's just the way it is.That is not, in any way, "attemptable" in my book. That's "you can jump into the Grand Canyon," and not "you can try to jump over it." Your bolded section highlights that; "though you may not succeed" implies "but you have a chance." In this case, they don't.Yep. That's what I said. And I've explained why I don't find this any more liberating.I actually find it very lacking in giving me information outside of mathematics. I, as DM, can make informed decisions about how likely things will succeed, but I feel that there's a lot to be desired when it comes to letting me know what is appropriate. I basically have tiny skill descriptions and the descriptions of Tiers to go on, as well as, what, a couple examples (Page 42, etc.)?But, I prefer skills being very well defined, so that players can reliably leverage those skills however they wish (in a way that won't break the game, and without having to consult the GM), and even make PC builds that include them. But it's just preference. I don't find 4e liberating, but it is "refreshing" in the sense that I don't have as much to memorize (because there isn't as much, since it's lighter).This is the solid information on mathematics I mentioned. From my limited experience, 4e handles this very well.I don't see how it's any more "free" than adhering to static DCs in a book. They may not "make sense" to you, but if you stick to them, there's still nothing to worry about as far as making those decisions. Maybe it frees you, somehow, but I'm not exactly sure how (when compared to static DCs), and I definitely don't feel any more free when I've run my sessions. I don't feel bad, mind you. I just don't feel "liberated" in any real sense of the word.</blockquote>

Verification