Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8421728" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, I don't know the answer either, except that it would also be possible to eliminate NADs, lol. I mean, I think its possible to have both, in theory. My problem with the whole thing is that they're just different things. I mean, NADs seem like an 'active defense' to me, so my thinking was that I would eliminate AC (and implement DR based on how heavy your armor is). That worked! I did some simplifications, like Armor reduces ALL types of damage across the board, there's no "psychic damage" or whatever that it doesn't work against. My explanation for that (its just a rules simplification) is that a key component of hit points is morale, and thus being clad in metal armor is actually also a mental defense! (OK, its a bit of a reach, but whatever). So, then consequently I designed some rules that really treat "0 hit points" as potentially "You give up all hope and flee/surrender." This becomes one of the options that can be put in play by the GM or the players depending on the situation. Game design is like that, at least for me. I start at one place, and various ideas lead to others.But to get back to reconcilliation, the other question is why do weapons have a +2/+3 proficiency bonus, and skills have +5? I slapped the +5 on everything, but I am not saying that was maybe wise... lol. Maybe proficiency is a bad idea to start with. I made your choice of weapon determine the attack stat, so that already leads to certain builds and stat distributions using certain weapons, etc. So who ACTUALLY needs proficiency?I wrote up a rule like this in my design notes once. It was actually a design for a system where the players and the GM would sort of create a 'front' interactively, with the players wagering stakes on what would be in it, and the GM either accepting them or upping the ante, and vice versa until one side decided they'd had enough and started the first scene. I never tried it, dunno if the idea has legs or not...Well, in my game there are no 'free checks', so if you WANT to confront something and you are a player, then you basically are starting an SC. This can create some situations that might be challenging to GM... lol.As I said, no free checks exist, so once a player invokes the dice AT ALL, they have, definitionally entered a challenge! That was my solution, which is game-structural. 4e itself is not so easy to do this in, because it has a LOT of "and just make a check to see if you..." kind of material. I had to think this through to get rid of it, so my opinion is the GM can still avoid a challenge, which creates a sort of "yes, or roll the dice" by implication. I have never stated this principle in HoML, but it is a structural corollary of no free checks. I guess if you enforced this in 4e, you'd have basically the same thing, with a few rough edges.</blockquote>

Verification