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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5499723" data-attributes="member: 177">But, you did replicate them.  Each of those little non-combat scenes can be interpreted as a SC behind the screen.  The players describe what they do, and roll dice.  You keep track of results, and inform them of status.  The only thing the SC adds is a notion of when you should call it a success or a failure - which you also probably have in mind when you design the scenes in 3e-style anyway.  The difference between these things is not large.SC's are presented in the rules in an abstract way - but then, so is combat.  Your implementation of them in play does not have to be abstract.  It can be very concrete, interactive, and presented like any other scene. And they by no means have to be railroading - a strength of SCs is that any way each player can think of to apply a skill to the issue can be included, rather than having very specific actions they must take for the players to succeed. I will grant you, the way the SCs are described in the core rules kinda stinks, so that maybe this is not immediately obvious upon reading.  But the issues you raise don't seem to me to inherent to the system, but to how the GM approaches the system's use at the table.  Sure, individual encounters can be poorly designed and implemented - but that's as true for combat, and for any edition.   I don't see how that at all follows from what I said.  Given Rule 0, it is possible to do whatever the heck you want.  I tie and encounter, or scene, to an amount of time because I think the game structures were built to directly support dramatic structures, which do generally take time.  The SC isn't a shorthand for getting through things quick and dirty - it is simply a structure GMs can use to help set difficulty and what happens on their own side of the screen.</blockquote>

Verification