Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 8737591" data-attributes="member: 48965">I'm having a bit of trouble parsing what you are saying here but I'm going to take a stab at it and if I'm wrong let me know...1. The crux seems to be...A GM who has no pre-constructed mine (and thus the obstacles in it to get out).. decides to just say fictionally you got out of the mine after a few skill checks... though if these are the checks that flowed organically from the facts known about the mine and the PC's action choices... I'm not seeing how this would be wrong.2. The SC framework has you decide beforehand that there needs to b 12 successes or 3 failures so you continue past the few skill checks to make sure that minimum number is met.  But in a game like 5e you would have never chosen to come up with the mine carts or jumping goblins because it didn't enforce Y number of successes or X failures before the PC's could get out.So my thoughts...If the mine is mapped or detailed beforehand then I should know what obstacles are present in it that would impede the PC's leaving...  If it is not detailed I should let the themes, and previously established fiction of the mine determine them.  The actual number of checks made  would be wholly dependent on the actions of the PC's and the resulting fiction of said actions.  The number of successes vs failures to succeed or end would again be dependent upon the actions of the PC's and the resulting fiction.  For many players this system works, they trust their DM to create the obstacles and difficulties (Just as he would in a SC) as well as to judge how their actions affect the resulting fiction, DC's and further obstacles... (just as he would in a SC).  Again the biggest difference I see here is that some groups either don't trust their DM to manage the "correct" number of obstacles and/or the DM doesn't want that responsibility.  I can see it as an issue arising for some but I think there was a vast number of DM's who saw this as the answer to the wrong problem.To further expound, and these are just my thoughts and opinions, many were looking at more robust and more granular resolution systems for their social and exploration conflicts... not a framework to mount it on.  They wanted perhaps something akin to social and exploration feats or skill knacks.  IMO, 4e got much closer to what many were looking for with some of their utility powers (and if I am remembering correctly... Star Wars SAGA did an even better job at showcasing something close to what many wanted)...  Again I just thing SC's addressed an issue many groups just weren't having and weren't looking for a solution to.</blockquote>

Verification