Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8729062" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Thanks for your post, but I fail to see how any of this is different from running a normal non-combat encounter:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">DM sets up scene.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Players state intentions, asking about applying proficiency via skills to any checks.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">DM calls for checks.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Players roll against DC or contested roll by DM.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">DM narrates resolution of rolls taking in player input.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Repeat until scene is resolved by player satisfaction or by DM narrative requirements.</li>
</ol>Now, I read about X number of successful checks vs. 3 (or whatever) failures as well. Perhaps that is really the only &quot;difference&quot;. The above could handle adding in such a complication, but IMO that seems like it would just involve repetitive rolls with little satisfaction from them. It would make non-combat scenes/encounters tedious like combat can sometimes become (I attack... I attack again... I attack, um, again? yawn).Part of your OP talks about using skills in unusual ways, which is fine if it makes sense, but that is already part of 5E, so I don't see any difference there. Otherwise, all the talk of the scene changing as a result of the PCs actions (successes or failures potentially) already happens.GM's don't decide when a scene is resolved unless they are tyrannical IMO, since if the players are engaged and having fun why stop it? (Unless the DM feels there is really nothing further to be gained, which they can communicate to the players easily enough.) Player's move things along and move on when they are finished and the scene is resolved. Sure, the GM might have to prod things here or there, and the DM might have to necessitate closing the scene for narrative reasons (probably more really a shift in the scene instead of &quot;closing&quot; it).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8729062, member: 6987520"] Thanks for your post, but I fail to see how any of this is different from running a normal non-combat encounter: [LIST=1] [*]DM sets up scene. [*]Players state intentions, asking about applying proficiency via skills to any checks. [*]DM calls for checks. [*]Players roll against DC or contested roll by DM. [*]DM narrates resolution of rolls taking in player input. [*]Repeat until scene is resolved by player satisfaction or by DM narrative requirements. [/LIST] Now, I read about X number of successful checks vs. 3 (or whatever) failures as well. Perhaps that is really the only "difference". The above could handle adding in such a complication, but IMO that seems like it would just involve repetitive rolls with little satisfaction from them. It would make non-combat scenes/encounters tedious like combat can sometimes become (I attack... I attack again... I attack, um, again? [I]yawn[/I]). Part of your OP talks about using skills in [I]unusual[/I] ways, which is fine if it makes sense, but that is already part of 5E, so I don't see any difference there. Otherwise, all the talk of the scene changing as a result of the PCs actions (successes or failures potentially) already happens. GM's don't decide when a scene is resolved unless they are tyrannical IMO, since if the players are engaged and having fun why stop it? (Unless the DM feels there is really nothing further to be gained, which they can communicate to the players easily enough.) Player's move things along and move on when [I]they[/I] are finished and the scene is resolved. Sure, the GM might have to prod things here or there, and the DM might have to necessitate closing the scene for narrative reasons (probably more really a [I]shift [/I]in the scene instead of "closing" it). [/QUOTE]

Verification