Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6152978" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Taken to its ultimate extreme, why do we need a GM at all?  Wrath of Ashardalon, a D&D Boardgame simply gives each monster a series of actions, which it will choose in order.  Monster writeups could easily incorporate similar "action priorities", whether automated or with actions selected by random chance, so there is no GM judgement to their actions.  Add adventure modules to set the scenarios, which the players can read through as dictated by their actions ("if you turn left, go to page 127, right go to page 132"; "if you defeat the Orcs, go to page 17; if you lose, go to page 21; if you flee go to page 15").I think this becomes a two edged sword.  If there is no feat/skill/whatever, then the GM can assess what factors influence the fighter's likelihood of success (poor tactics, whether the orcs are brave or cowardly, etc.) and the fighter has a chance to succeed.  But the GM and the player(s) may well disagree on how likely it is, or should be, that the fighter should succeed (right down to the player believing this should be automatic and the GM believing there is no chance of success, so he shrugs and the Orcs rush past the fighter).  So, to resolve the conflict, we create very specific rules and mechanics that dictate whether the PC can accomplish this task.But, if we decide that the ability to draw the Orcs' attention to the fighter will be mechanically determined, based on his Intimidate check, perhaps , maybe requiring a feat, or perhaps just adding a combat maneuver ("attract attention"), etc., then we now have a very specific mechanic that player and GM can turn to a page of the rulebook, and this is how the fighter's attempt will be resolved, strictly by the RAW.  Now everyone is happy, right?Sure...as long as the player accepts that, since he didn't invest in the feat/skill points/etc. (or lacks the skill to succeed with that new combat maneuver), his fighter cannot or does not accomplish "what I can easily do in real life"; as long as the rules are clear and unambiguous so there are no debates on what the RAW actually means (we never have arguments like that, right?);as long as we all agree these are good rules that appropriately simulate the underlying action (and players/GM's never disagree with, much less change, a written rule, do they?).But what this will unoubtedly mean is that, since there is a very specific mechanical mechanism by which this desired action is accomplished, the PC cannot accomplish the desired result unless he has the appropriate mechanical attributes (the feat; the skill ranks; whatever) to allow him to succeed.  If that's not on the character sheet, tough luck, choose to do something else.  As we gather more and more specific rules, we often become less and less willing to innovate something not covered by those rules.  And, I note, that the ability to accomplish what the player wants - be able to attract the attention of those monsters - now comes at the cost of losing some other ability the player also might want his fighter to have, because he only gets 1 feat this level, so he can either atract attention of monsters, or he can get a bonus to Trip attempts and initiate them without taking an AoO.  If we have 2,000 feats, each of which represents something the player thinks the fighter should be able to do, is he happy with the tiny subset his character can access?  Or would it have been better to simply allow him to attempt to attract the attention of the monsters based on an opposed Charisma roll?  Would it perhaps be preferable to have a very broad structure in the rule books for resolving issues that are not covered by the rules, rather than trying to create and publish a rule for every possible situation, al mechanically suported by an ever-expanding list of feats, skills, powers, tricks, or whatever you wish to call them?</blockquote>

Verification