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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5694813" data-attributes="member: 2011">Hmmmm.I find this an interesting synopsis of the article.I read the article very differently and my conclusion on what Monte was trying to do differs, but I'm trying to keep in mind what you wrote here."That kind of discussion around the table is dynamic. It's interesting. It should be rewarded. It encourages the skill and imagination of players more than characters. And it would be horrible if a poor die roll wrecked it all."Horrible???The phrases "it should be rewarded" and "it would be horrible" caught my eye. One aspect of many threads over the last decade have been about rewarding players. It might be the cynical aspect of my grognard nature, but I see an awful lot of "entitlement" out of these two phrases.To me, the reward of a dynamic and interesting conversation around the table is "the dynamic and interesting conversation around the table". I'm having fun at the table with the discussion because it's a lively discussion.Being told to then reward the players by making sure that they find something is kind of backwards to me. If nothing is actually in the room (as per the DM setting up the scenario) or if a bad die roll comes along, to me (as an old grognard DM), that's ok. In fact, it might turn out to be more than ok, even desirable.Creating a rank skill system is pretty much creating passive skill rules for every skill in the game system. I've pretty much thrown passive perception and passive insight out of my games because as DM, I don't need a number to tell me what to tell the players, nor do I want to be handcuffed to the concept of "well, the first level Thief has a +14 to his perception, so you have to let him know every detail that DC 24 or less passive perception shows".Instead, I try to run a game with only a few skill rolls for when I am on the fence. Sometimes, I don't ask for rolls, I just tell the players what the PCs observe or know. Other times, I ask for rolls by trained PCs only. Or, I sometimes ask for rolls by a single individual PC (or small group of PCs), or a roll by everyone. Other times, a player might ask if s/he can make a roll and I allow it, but I don't necessarily become a slave to the result. The actual results for me on skill rolls do become more important in a skill challenge, but are less important otherwise.The results of the rolls just work as guidelines for what I then tell the players. I really don't see where Monte's system improves upon this. The rules as written don't prevent groups that like to use skilled play because the DM can always add bonuses to the rolls (or not use them a lot like I do), and they don't prevent groups that like to use the rolls either.What I got out of Monte's article was that he hates rolling the dice and getting "screwed", so he wants to expand upon the passive skill system and if he can simplify it by having fewer "numbers", all the better.</blockquote>

Verification