Reducing Options to Increase Fun
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
Iron Wolf said:
The thing is, the DM isn't setting a new DC every time. If Character A jumps over the ditch (to continue beating this horse) and has to roll X, it's pretty much assumed that Character B has to beat the same DC.
Now, whether that DC is a fixed DC (such as in a jump skill in 3e) or a Save vs Paralysis, the end result is the same. The rule gets made. Jumping over a 10 foot ditch requires X.
So, what do you gain by having a free form system? Once the adjudication is made, regardless of how it was derived, it becomes a rule. Most people would consider it bad GMing to vary that determination between characters (Character A makes a Strength check, character B makes a Paralyzation save).
Now, I do agree that detailed rules are not needed for rare elements. That's fine. That's why I like rules light systems where you have a small number of broadly applied rules. Savage Worlds, for example, has the Rule of 4. No matter what you are trying to do, if your final score on a die roll is 4 or greater, you succeed.
The only adjudication needed is what die you are going to roll (and all PC's always get to roll a D6 in addition to whatever other die they roll) and what modifiers are added in.
Thus, I don't need a "Make Fire" skill. Roll off your stats, plus your Wild die (the d6) and see if you start the fire. If you want your character to be good at starting fires, well then, we can put points during character generation into that. If it's pouring rain, then I, as GM, can whack in penalties to your roll (or bonuses if it's really dry). The GM gets to keep power over the chances of success, and the player gets to modify his chances of success before he attempts something.
Ariosto - I really don't know where you're you're getting the whole Older D&D is bad thing from. Basic D&D does not have any skill mechanics. None. They are completely absent from the rules. As they are in AD&D as well. IMO, free form doesn't work over the long term because, once you've established how difficult a task is, the next time it comes up, it will be just as difficult (all things being equal) so what have you gained by using a system that lacks mechanics?
As soon as you've established how something will be resolved once, that is likely the way it will always be resolved. Essentially, you've just written a rule. Is it really that much different from having the rule there in the first place?
Raven Crowking
First Post
Careful, there. Skill rules appear in AD&D, with the background skills table in the DMG (undefined) and NWPs (first appearing in Oriental Adventures).
I would agree, however, that 3e marks the first appearance of a good skill mechanic in D&D.
I would agree, however, that 3e marks the first appearance of a good skill mechanic in D&D.
IronWolf
blank
I agree that the DM is not setting a new DC every time for each 10' ditch the characters encounter later. Though I could see adjusting the DC if the second ditch has a slippery edge or other extenuating factor that might raise or lower the DC. But if the group comes back by this ditch 3 months later, the DC would be the same this time as well. Much as the adjusting you suggest for the starting a fire DC.
Hussar said:
Due to extenuating factors that could occur when facing other 10' ditches I would be hesitant to call it a rule, but more of a guideline. The player now knows that a 10' ditch will require roughly X DC, though there may be other factors that modify that DC to the easier or harder.
I certainly agree that you don't chance the DC from one character to the next or using one method to resolve the skill challenge for one character and a different for another.
Hussar
Legend
Oh, sure there might be other factors. But, those factors exist whether you use a free form system or not. At least they should. In a free form system, the DM makes up the factors that affect the chances of success. In a fixed system, the DM still makes up the factors that affect the chances of success. There's no difference, other than maybe in the fixed system, some of those factors might be spelled out beforehand.
In either case, it's still the basic rule you go from. Sure, the next ditch might be a bit easier or more difficult, but, those are circumstantial modifiers, not modifiers to the basic mechanics.
In either case, it's still the basic rule you go from. Sure, the next ditch might be a bit easier or more difficult, but, those are circumstantial modifiers, not modifiers to the basic mechanics.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Well, the resolution system was that the DM makes a determination. And, IMHO, it worked better than whatever alternative skill systems were available at the time. But, again IMHO, the 3e SRD skill system offers a superior basis for a resolution system, and I based my own off the SRD materials for that reason.
RC
pemerton said:
This is suddenly not true in 3e? In 4e? I guess Living Forgotten Realms is just breaking the rules left and right!
Maybe someone could actually cite the rule that LFR (and any other campaign that has magic items located in scenarios) is breaking.
What I have seen is just the opposite! In 3e and 4e, what the players encounter in every way -- not just treasures -- is tremendously more decided by what the DM has planned. Players are by design more "along for the ride". The player-culture has taken this even beyond the 3e books.
Huh??pemerton said:
That is just the opposite of what I have ever -- over decades of actually using them -- seen in the rules for introducing new spells and magic items!
By what logic did you arrive at this notion?
By contrast, all I have ever seen from 3e/4e players seems to imply that it is basically unthinkable to do such a thing.
There seems from my perspective to be some sort of "wainscot society", a vale of gaming tears somehow parallel to the world through which I move.
I just don't encounter all this drama over referees considering situations and setting odds.
What very little I have seen was from fellows who certainly were not satisfied by citation from a list of example situations (a la the 3.5 PHB). That just meant Plan B: Semantic Quibbles, and Plan C: Argument Over What Is "Realistic".
Somehow it never occurs to them that it might be significant that they are alone in their complaints. GMs stay in 'business' because their players approve of how they conduct their games.
In my world, GMs are in it for the same reason as players: to have fun playing with friends! They are not out to be unfair.
If the GM gets something significantly wrong, the players just say,
"Hey, 'G.O.D.', did something change about thing x, because last time it was like such and so?"
And the GM says,
"D'oh! Right you are."
I just don't encounter all this drama over referees considering situations and setting odds.
What very little I have seen was from fellows who certainly were not satisfied by citation from a list of example situations (a la the 3.5 PHB). That just meant Plan B: Semantic Quibbles, and Plan C: Argument Over What Is "Realistic".
Somehow it never occurs to them that it might be significant that they are alone in their complaints. GMs stay in 'business' because their players approve of how they conduct their games.
In my world, GMs are in it for the same reason as players: to have fun playing with friends! They are not out to be unfair.
If the GM gets something significantly wrong, the players just say,
"Hey, 'G.O.D.', did something change about thing x, because last time it was like such and so?"
And the GM says,
"D'oh! Right you are."
