Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 3860647" data-attributes="member: 3608">It's just a game, though. I'm happy to roll with the GM's decisions while he's behind the screen &amp; to expect the same consideration from him when I'm behind the screen.Non-arbitrary decisions.I would consider each action &amp; the circumstances, &amp; it's chance of success. I'd ask the player(s) for their best arguments in their favor. Then I'd fudge in the PCs favor. If I still think there's a significant chance of failure, I'd make a die roll corresponding to that chance. Die rolls would probably be rare. Sometimes (maybe often) I'll just let the PC succeed because it isn't inconceivable &amp; it's more interesting if they do.I've come to the position that I'd rather explore the PCs that I can create in the system the GM has choosen rather than lamenting the one's I can't.(Which is not to minimize the point that such special cases can be handled as ad hoc special cases.)Me too. Oddly enough, the lack of a skill system was also what brought me back to classic D&amp;D.I have no problem with using a skill system to fill in for the areas that D&amp;D lacked mechanics for.What bothers me, though, is when people make the mistake of assuming that without mechanics, those things can't/didn't/don't occur. The thing that D&amp;D did--as it evolved from &quot;wargaming&quot;--was to simplify the combat mechanics--thereby de-emphasizing it--&amp; give the referee warrant to make judgements to resolve all the things there weren't mechanics for.Whenever I hear stories about 1e games, the most interesting parts are almost never about combat or magic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RFisher, post: 3860647, member: 3608"] It's just a game, though. I'm happy to roll with the GM's decisions while he's behind the screen & to expect the same consideration from him when I'm behind the screen. Non-arbitrary decisions. I would consider each action & the circumstances, & it's chance of success. I'd ask the player(s) for their best arguments in their favor. Then I'd fudge in the PCs favor. If I still think there's a significant chance of failure, I'd make a die roll corresponding to that chance. Die rolls would probably be rare. Sometimes (maybe often) I'll just let the PC succeed because it isn't inconceivable & it's more interesting if they do. I've come to the position that I'd rather explore the PCs that I [i]can[/i] create in the system the GM has choosen rather than lamenting the one's I can't. (Which is not to minimize the point that such special cases can be handled as [i]ad hoc[/i] special cases.) Me too. Oddly enough, the lack of a skill system was also what brought me back to classic D&D. I have no problem with using a skill system to fill in for the areas that D&D lacked mechanics for. What bothers me, though, is when people make the mistake of assuming that without mechanics, those things can't/didn't/don't occur. The thing that D&D did--as it evolved from "wargaming"--was to simplify the combat mechanics--thereby de-emphasizing it--& give the referee warrant to make judgements to resolve all the things there weren't mechanics for. Whenever I hear stories about 1e games, the most interesting parts are almost never about combat or magic. [/QUOTE]

Verification