Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6162266" data-attributes="member: 5143">There is a big difference, I agree.&nbsp; My point was that some people view GM discretion over action resolution to be an important part of the game.&nbsp; If the DM has the leeway to come up with action resolution mechanics on the fly, it is easier to adjudicate &quot;out of the box&quot; actions.Unfortunately, this has been my experience as well.&nbsp; However, allowing the DM nearly no discretion over the mechanics leads to situations where things simply cannot be tried at all because the mechanics don't allow it.&nbsp; Or at least, don't allow it easily.&nbsp; Attempting to trip a monster in 4e D&amp;D, for instance.&nbsp; There are many powers that do it.&nbsp; There are no clear rules on how to do it if you don't have a power for it.&nbsp; Allowing players to do it at-will without taking a power for it might seem like a smack in the face for players who had to use up one of their choices explicitly on a power that let them trip people.&nbsp; So, better to not allow it at all.Which is why I'm beginning to believe that we need something that is in between the two extremes.&nbsp; There needs to be a fairly robust skill system with clear guidelines on what each of the skills should be used for as well as what DCs are easy, medium, and hard.&nbsp; Meanwhile, the system has to be not exhaustive so as to allow DMs some leeway in adjudicating &quot;out of the box&quot; situations.I found the Skill Challenge mechanics weren't altogether that well thought through.&nbsp; Which is why they tended to be clunky in their execution.&nbsp; Too many times we sat there saying &quot;Alright, that's 5 successes trying to convince the bouncer to let you into the bar.&nbsp; You need 8.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Uh, I guess I use Diplomacy AGAIN.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Alright, you succeed again and the bouncer doesn't look completely convinced.&nbsp; What do you do now?&quot;On the other hand, a less formal system for using a number of skills to succeed in a larger problem would be excellent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 6162266, member: 5143"] There is a big difference, I agree. My point was that some people view GM discretion over action resolution to be an important part of the game. If the DM has the leeway to come up with action resolution mechanics on the fly, it is easier to adjudicate "out of the box" actions. Unfortunately, this has been my experience as well. However, allowing the DM nearly no discretion over the mechanics leads to situations where things simply cannot be tried at all because the mechanics don't allow it. Or at least, don't allow it easily. Attempting to trip a monster in 4e D&D, for instance. There are many powers that do it. There are no clear rules on how to do it if you don't have a power for it. Allowing players to do it at-will without taking a power for it might seem like a smack in the face for players who had to use up one of their choices explicitly on a power that let them trip people. So, better to not allow it at all. Which is why I'm beginning to believe that we need something that is in between the two extremes. There needs to be a fairly robust skill system with clear guidelines on what each of the skills should be used for as well as what DCs are easy, medium, and hard. Meanwhile, the system has to be not exhaustive so as to allow DMs some leeway in adjudicating "out of the box" situations. I found the Skill Challenge mechanics weren't altogether that well thought through. Which is why they tended to be clunky in their execution. Too many times we sat there saying "Alright, that's 5 successes trying to convince the bouncer to let you into the bar. You need 8." "Uh, I guess I use Diplomacy AGAIN." "Alright, you succeed again and the bouncer doesn't look completely convinced. What do you do now?" On the other hand, a less formal system for using a number of skills to succeed in a larger problem would be excellent. [/QUOTE]

Verification