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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5499780" data-attributes="member: 48965">As RC cites... the SC DC's given aren't even based on the actual DC's given for the skills in 4e... they are based on PC level (though the funny thing is that I've seen other 4e fans argue that DC's are based on the challenge level of the obstacle) the determination is pre-set, and again X successes on the first roll means the entire SC was a successes and really everyone could just choose not to act for the rest of it and still come out winners, since that is one of the choices in a SC by RAW. However, there is no overarching success or failure level in my set up... success, failures and the end result are all determined by what PC's choose to do and has it's pacing set by the collaborative actions of the PC's and DM... not by an arbitrarily (gamist) limit that is correctly designed for their level.   Now you are talking about the abstraction level of fluff... which has not been what we've been discussing... we have been discussing mechanics and they have levels of abstraction.  Riiight, I get it... I just don't "get" SC's... yet I haven't seen you explain how these mechanics are not a gamist structure as opposed to narrative.  So maybe it's not my understanding of them, but that you are making them what you want them to be... because the advantages you and permeton are promoting for 4e SC's don't seem to me inherent to the system, but to how you all as GM's approach the system's use at the table. Sure the mechanics can seem great when you intepret and change them to fit your vision... but that's for any edition.   Again we are speaking about mechanics of the games. I'm not even clear what you are arguing Umbran, you kinda jumped into the middle of a discussion between me and permeton without clarifying what exactly your stand is... and you don't seem to be addressing the issues that we are all discussing, so could you please clarify what exactly your stance is.     But you are tying an encounter to your own pre-conceived notions of how much time it takes... there is not set amount of time for an "encounter" in D&D. And here I see the problem... you see permeton has argued that he doesn't want to deal with minutae and bogging down you are forced to use in 3.x/PF and thus feels 4e's SC's allow a DM to do things you can't in 3.x?PF... I argued that 3.X/PF's rules could accomodate this down and dirty way of playing out encounters as well... you seem to be either going back and forth on your stance or not really understanding what we are discussing.</blockquote>

Verification