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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7328210" data-attributes="member: 6775031">So, if I have this right, you're describing the 3E/5E skill system as low-involvement, the 4E skill challenge system as medium-involvement, and the 3E/4E combat systems as high-involvement.In that case, I would want systems of interest to have higher involvement than systems of disinterest. That part should be obvious and straight-forward, I would think. I don't want to spend a lot of time doing stuff that isn't interesting, so just abstract that out to a single die roll.In general, I feel like I should want important things (with dramatic outcomes) to have higher involvement than less-important things (where the outcome doesn't matter), but that's just because complex system skew closer toward the average and humans are naturally risk-averse. As a player, it kind of seems like cheating to suggest that important things are best-eleven-out-of-twenty instead of best-two-out-of-three because I want to win and I'm unlikely to attempt anything if the odds aren't in my favor. It feels more fair to say that importance is not a factor.As a GM, I would normally hope that important things (with dramatic outcomes) are likely to be interesting enough to warrant modeling with higher-investment mechanics, so I might ratchet up the involvement of important encounters by one step while otherwise basing involvement purely on interest. For example, a battle against some chumps might be done with theater-of-the-mind, while a battle against a boss or dragon would warrant a full grid combat. Talking your way past a guard might be a simple check, while talking your way past the king involves progressively shifting his attitude.</blockquote>

Verification