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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5628279" data-attributes="member: 2067">Same deal as last time: Ideally (perhaps an unattainable ideal...), complexity needs to scale at every possible decision point. I need to be able to start running a fiefdom and making alliances (or fighting combats) with simple rules, and be able to add complexity gradually, as I find my group is interested, or to scale it down gradually, as I find they're not. I'd also like to be able to hit different complexity levels for different players, so Bill can just roll d20's, but Laura can engage in complex facing and precise damage rules....Again, perhaps unattainable, but that would sure be neat. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Without that, just being able to tone down 4e combat and ratchet up its exploration and roleplaying would be boffo for my own games. I'm with Skip in a few places. Like here:I think this is very true, and brings up some of the problems with "mother may I" gameplay and pure DM judgement calls. As a DM, I don't want to HAVE to make a thousand judgement calls. I want to be able to roll the dice and have the system tell me what happens. I don't want to have to decide if my NPCs are for fighting or for talking or recruiting as allies. I want to be able to do all of that with them, whenever I need to. But I can see where a group with a DM with broader control can find that restrictive.So the idea is that you can "turn it off if you want," which is Rule 0, which was a core rule in 3e, despite some DMs feeling like it didn't exist.</blockquote>

Verification