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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7060344" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think that is an accurate summary of things, as I understand them. My point is such that the DM judgment required to determine the DC for the perception check to notice the bowl is probably the equivalent of the amount of DM judgment to simply say yes. So I really don't see one as being more player driven and one being more railroad. I do see a possible issue with a DM who simply said no and did not offer any alternative way to achieve what the player wanted. But I suppose this would be the equivalent of the DM setting the DC incredibly high if calling for a perception check.I suppose I just don't think that the chance of the die is always the best way to achieve drama or excitement or risk. Gotcha. I play with an altered Inspiration mechanic, and I allow for the Bonds and Flaws and other traits to change or for new ones to be added or old ones to fade as play progresses. We're really loose with all that stuff, which I find to be more manageable than having hard and fast mechanics for everything. Same thing with experience...we ditched the traditional XP system a few editions ago. Do you have examples of each of these? You've given me "what", but not "how"...I don't know if you need a device for that. My game does that....we just let the unfolding game and our desires shape that stuff. Works well. Say yes or roll the die is pretty fundamental. I actually simply say yes quite a bit. But there are times where I will say no. I don't know if bounded accuracy is a big concern on this....especially since the DM is still free to influence the outcome by determining DC and so on. I don't know how the XP system is an obstacle....but I agree it's crap, and we ditched it long ago.Okay, so this next bit looks like a quote of mine that you accidentally inserted into your post; maybe you can answer now:I understand. But I don't know if the byproduct you mention is such a simple thing. In this example, perhaps....the presence of a bowl to catch the blood and therefore fulfill the PC desire seems fairly minor in the grand scheme. So minor I would feel comfortable simply saying yes and proceeding rather than relying on a check. But I would assume based on the focus you are giving this idea, that it can also come up in circumstances that can have a more profound impact on the game. Would you say that is true?But why are you assuming that it's always reflecting the GM's priorities and pre-authored conception? Who is advocating for that? This I agree with....at least with published adventures. But I also think that's more likely in pre-published adventures....they can only allow for so much lateral movement on the part of the PCs and how the story shapes up. Yeah, I don't know about that. I don't see an either/or as far as GM Driven and Player Driven. I use both...if not in equal measure, then close to it. It can fluctuate at times in favor of one over the other.</blockquote>

Verification