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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8012211" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think it's more about being able to achieve success at the stated actions rather than just declaring them. If the GM can simply decide "no, that's impossible" whenever he wants, then declaring actions is meaningless. Now, I don't think anyone would GM that way and expect to keep their players. But perhaps this helps to illustrate some of the concern about this system? Or why some might have some dissatisfaction with it? Looking at it solely in the context of D&D.....can a DM simply narrate that an attack is a miss, no matter what? I mean, if I roll a 26 on my attack, I should be able to hit the orc. If the DM says "oh, no, actually your sword is deflected by an arrow in flight, and your attack misses" then I'm likely gonna be a bit annoyed by that. This is far less likely to happen though, because D&D has a plethora of combat rules that make it pretty clear what types of actions can be taken (use a Standard Action to take the Attack Action), how their success is determined (roll d20 and add your total attack bonus and score equal to or higher than the target's AC), and their outcome (roll 1d10 and add your damage bonus, and reduce target HP by that amount). Combat is all very clear and understood. But the social aspect of the game is far less so......what am rolling, what's the target number, what happens on a success, do I need only one or will I need to roll again, and so on......these are all questions that rest entirely on the judgment of the GM. And that may not be bad. I run and play 5E all the time.....it can work great and be loads of fun. But these soft spots in the rules absolutely can result in poor play experiences from time to time, especially with a DM who isn't principled, or who is still learning.</blockquote>

Verification