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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 5643164" data-attributes="member: 99817">I really have no idea what MM is talking about. I thought I understood where he was going a week or so back, but after this latest article I'm just a bit confused.If he's looking at scaling levels of complexity then I think he needs to be starting out looking very hard and very closely at something central and vital to any system - the resolution mechanic.D&D has, imo, a task resolution system. Say what you try to do, roll a dice, see if you do it. The alternative is a conflict resolution system. Say what you want to achieve, roll a dice, see if you get it.The thing with these is that they can often appear the same. The difference between 'I try and pick the lock' (task) and 'I want to open the safe' (conflict) is slight. What's happening there is that you are focusing your conflict resolution very tightly to emulate task resolution.But conflict resolution mechanics can also scale outwards in a way that task resolution does not, because you get to set the stakes for what a roll means in the fiction. You can roll your Tactics skill to outflank a troll or conquer a country depending on your goals at the time.This kind of scaling approach is what I originally thought MM was talking about, and it's something I'd be interesting in seeing. That is - if you want to keep it simple then use broad brush strokes with your rolls (conflict resolution). If you want complexity then add it by narrowing the focus of your resolution system (task).So, for example. Group A might use task resolution for the round by round details of combat but just want a quick D20 roll for social. Group B might want the reverse - lots of detail in the politics but a quick d20 to resolve a fight. Group C might want both in detail. Group D might want neither in detail. All four options would give the game a very different feel.Not sure this is where MM is going though.</blockquote>

Verification