Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7053431" data-attributes="member: 42582">5e has a non-sim Inspiration mechanic, which enables players (and their PCs) to try harder in a context where stuff they are committed or connected to in some fashion is on the line.It has a non-sim damag mechanic (hp), plus non-sim action economy which allows some characters (eg fighters, via action surge) to try harder.I think the main obstacle to using 5e to play a non-sandbox game that generates story without railroading/illusion would be non-combat resolution system. I see three issues, which I'll address from easiest to hardest to sort out:(1) The guidance on DC setting and when to call for checks is a bit vague. But the latter can easily be resolved by treating &quot;uncertain&quot; as going to dramatic uncertainty rather than causal uncertainty, and so running the game in a more-or-less &quot;say 'yes&quot; or roll the dice&quot; style.

(2) The rules around re-tries are even vaguer. But it would be very straightforward to use &quot;let it ride&quot;, in just the same way as Stephee Radley-MacFarland advocated for 4e in a &quot;Save My Game&quot; column.

(3) Bounded accuracy makes non-combat resolution very dependent on the swing of the d20 rather than the investment of the player (via the play of his/her PC). This is an issue for &quot;say 'yes' or roll the dice&quot;. Liberal use of the inspiration rules might help with this, however - advantage is a strong buff to try to take the focus off the d20 alone and back onto the PC's connection to the action.At higher levels there is the perennial risk of spell-casting drowining out all other considerations, and so &quot;(mostly) vanilla narrativist&quot; 5e might work best from (say) 3rd level to (say) 10th or so, but the bulk of play seems to happen in that level range in any event.So even confined to consideration of 5e I don't see that your implicit assumptions hold good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7053431, member: 42582"] 5e has a non-sim Inspiration mechanic, which enables players (and their PCs) to try harder in a context where stuff they are committed or connected to in some fashion is on the line. It has a non-sim damag mechanic (hp), plus non-sim action economy which allows some characters (eg fighters, via action surge) to try harder. I think the main obstacle to using 5e to play a non-sandbox game that generates story without railroading/illusion would be non-combat resolution system. I see three issues, which I'll address from easiest to hardest to sort out: [indent](1) The guidance on DC setting and when to call for checks is a bit vague. But the latter can easily be resolved by treating "uncertain" as going to dramatic uncertainty rather than causal uncertainty, and so running the game in a more-or-less "say 'yes" or roll the dice" style. (2) The rules around re-tries are even vaguer. But it would be very straightforward to use "let it ride", in just the same way as Stephee Radley-MacFarland advocated for 4e in a "Save My Game" column. (3) Bounded accuracy makes non-combat resolution very dependent on the swing of the d20 rather than the investment of the player (via the play of his/her PC). This is an issue for "say 'yes' or roll the dice". Liberal use of the inspiration rules might help with this, however - advantage is a strong buff to try to take the focus off the d20 alone and back onto the PC's connection to the action.[/indent] At higher levels there is the perennial risk of spell-casting drowining out all other considerations, and so "(mostly) vanilla narrativist" 5e might work best from (say) 3rd level to (say) 10th or so, but the bulk of play seems to happen in that level range in any event. So even confined to consideration of 5e I don't see that your implicit assumptions hold good. [/QUOTE]

Verification