Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8915319" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I find the big issue with &quot;open-ended point assignment systems&quot; is that they're plagued by too many structural issues and only truly work if progress is way, way more incremental/continuous than D&amp;D allows for. Getting 20 extremely chunky levels that you can't generally &quot;take back&quot; is a poor fit for this approach. It's a great idea for something that grows very gradually and (relatively) smoothly, but both the general structure of D&amp;D-style TTRPG play (periodic sessions, discrete relatively large power jumps, highly variable content both session to session and adventure to adventure, lamentably high likelihood of games not getting past middle levels) and the amount of time, interest, and effort most people are willing to put out...just doesn't match this.That doesn't mean it couldn't be developed as an optional alternative, similar to the &quot;spell point&quot; system, but I'm just not sure that this is a great fit for how people play D&amp;D--neither old school, nor tactical 4e-style, nor the current-day narrative-heavy protagonistic approach (&quot;Critical Role&quot;-style as some might put it) fit all that well with it. Old school is too lethal, casual, and preferring fast-and-loose methods. 4e-like tactical play, at least as I understand it (being a fan myself) sees it as an awful lot of design investment and player overhead for really minimal benefits and rife with potential for blind alleys/unforeseeably poor choices. And the prevailing style today fuses the casual-gamer stance of old school and the distrust of &quot;this invites blind alleys&quot; of the tactical side.So, given the above--what would you do to address these concerns for folks of these groups? Because even with a really really comprehensive reliable list of explicit DCs, I still think the issues above remain. To be more succinct, how do you deal with these criticisms:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">This seems like an awful lot of work to get a very small increase in realism. Why not use something simpler?</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">The high risk of making poor choices means I feel like I have to plan way in advance, which is frustrating and makes it feel much less realistic.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">As a player interested in casual play or doing something creative or offbeat, I feel punished simply because I'm not making optimal choices.</li>
</ol></blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8915319, member: 6790260"] I find the big issue with "open-ended point assignment systems" is that they're plagued by too many structural issues and only truly work if progress is way, way more incremental/continuous than D&D allows for. Getting 20 extremely chunky levels that you can't generally "take back" is a poor fit for this approach. It's a [I]great[/I] idea for something that grows very gradually and (relatively) smoothly, but both the general structure of D&D-style TTRPG play (periodic sessions, discrete relatively large power jumps, highly variable content both session to session and adventure to adventure, lamentably high likelihood of games not getting past middle levels) and the amount of time, interest, and effort most people are willing to put out...just doesn't match this. That doesn't mean it couldn't be developed as an optional alternative, similar to the "spell point" system, but I'm just not sure that this is a great fit for how people play D&D--neither old school, nor tactical 4e-style, nor the current-day narrative-heavy protagonistic approach ("Critical Role"-style as some might put it) fit all that well with it. Old school is too lethal, casual, and preferring fast-and-loose methods. 4e-like tactical play, at least as I understand it (being a fan myself) sees it as an awful lot of design investment and player overhead for really minimal benefits and rife with potential for blind alleys/unforeseeably poor choices. And the prevailing style today fuses the casual-gamer stance of old school and the distrust of "this invites blind alleys" of the tactical side. So, given the above--what would you do to address these concerns for folks of these groups? Because [I]even with[/I] a really really comprehensive reliable list of explicit DCs, I still think the issues above remain. To be more succinct, how do you deal with these criticisms: [LIST=1] [*]This seems like an awful lot of work to get a very small increase in realism. Why not use something simpler? [*]The high risk of making poor choices means I feel like I have to plan way in advance, which is frustrating [I]and[/I] makes it feel much less realistic. [*]As a player interested in casual play or doing something creative or offbeat, I feel punished simply because I'm not making optimal choices. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification