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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6505653" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, that about covers it. There's no reason to assume that an inspired fighter cannot just stand up and go on as if his injuries are trivial. If the GM is determined to narrate every hit as guts falling out on the floor then perhaps there's a stumbling block there, but personally I'm too interested in the overall action to labor each such point with an elaborate description unless its say a massive damage overkill that felled the character to -bloodied in one shot (in which case the rules already do what I want, no healing is going to help this guy).Call me old-school, I don't find that the 19 skills of 4e are overly generalized. I mean you mention Diplomacy and Bluff, but there's also Insight, Intimidation, and Streetwise just to name some that fall within the limits of your example. A high Bluff, high Intimidation character without Diplomacy training is likely the pattern for your callous personality, etc. Nor is every elaboration left only onto RP, there can be other subsystems besides skills. 4e has, and I have expounded on in my own play, the utility of the background system, which can both supply mechanical support for "My character knows how to play the fiddle" as well as add nuance to the character's personality. I don't think detailed skill lists work well. They're not particularly realistic and they lead to other sins of design that more than compensate for any advantage IMHO. When you have 60 or more skills as RM does (and with expansions and etc its probably MUCH more) things just get ambiguous and confusing. Should I use gemology or assay to determine the price of the Great Carbuncle? Or should it be some other skill entirely? I tried running a BRP-based game a year or so ago and I just couldn't deal with it. Inevitably the PCs always lacked the one critical skill that would save the day at any given moment, or had 30% in it because they had 200 choices to spread points around. Other times we spent 20 minutes wrangling about which skill was appropriate. Maybe HARP/RM has a much more carefully designed skill list, but I don't remember it being so. 3e/d20 has the same flaw. I much prefer a system where the mechanics give you basic 'bents' or 'knacks' like 'Athletic' or 'Diplomatic' which you can apply to problems and then the players can, if they like, carry the elaboration further and specify that they are for instance particularly good at swimming or etc. In my current system this sort of thing would be taken care of by a minor boon, you spent a week learning to swim, now you get +2. Granted, in a very sandboxy campaign you might get a group of players "camping" on their base and just spending years learning every obscure boon they can get for a GP price, but GMs have plenty of ways to combat THAT. It certainly suites my style of play anyhow. So, no, I wouldn't recommend RM, personally. I don't think its a bad game, its mechanics work quite well for what they were designed to do, but IMHO it doesn't lead to greater verisimilitude, and whatever it does get you is at the cost of learning and wading through a system that earned the name 'Chartmaster' and 'Rollmaster' many times over! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification