Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5774527" data-attributes="member: 2011">We tried these types of systems a few decades back. They can be used, but there are good mechanical reasons why many game systems dropped them (and action time based systems) for circular turn-based systems.The problem is that it's all at the whim of the DM.For example, one DM states that the Ants charge while the PC is getting out the rope, hence, there is no +4 bonus to defense because the rope isn't there (or because the rope might be there, but the PC hasn't yet pulled it) before the Ants actually attack. In your example, not only does the PC get the rope out, but he manages to throw an end to the henchmen, he manages to hang on to the other end, the henchmen manages to get a good grip, and he manages to pull the henceman significantly fast enough to give him an extra +4 to defense (which is a huge bonus). Are the Ants 200 feet away??? The DM is also giving the henchmen a +2 to defense for the defensive action of climbing whereas a different DM would give the henchmen a -2 penalty for climbing.It's not that it's more real and chaotic, it's that the DM decides a lot of rules that normal 4E already has baked in. On a good day, the DM gives the PCs all of these actions and bonuses in the small fraction of time that the Ants charge. On a bad day (or with a different DM), the PCs only get some of the actions done in a single round, cannot react in time to manage all of these actions or the modifiers might be totally different.It takes a lot of trust and forbearance on the part of the players. "Last week, I got a bonus for climbing, but this week, I'm getting a penalty. WT?". That tends to work with groups that have been tor together a long time, but it tends to not work so well with pick up games. It's not that the results are more chaotic than the normal game system, is that the rules are more chaotic than the normal game system.Some of your rules sound strange as well. "pushing him back down into the hole gives you a +2 to AC". I have no idea the rationale behind this, especially if I miss with the attack. So as a player, I would be wondering why the heck the DM is handing out this bonus to AC for using Tide of Iron. The power doesn't give this bonus out. So regardless of whether I hit or miss, the monster gets a penalty to hit me because everything is happening at the same time and just the declaration of which attack I am using changes the outcome of the encounter, regardless of whether I hit or miss with that power. Or alternatively, if I hit I get the bonus to AC, but if I miss I don't, so we cannot necessarily adjudicate the results of the Ant's attack until we adjudicate my attack.I also might ask a question "Why am I getting an AC bonus?" where stopping to talk about it would slow up the encounter. In normal 4E, I know what the bonuses are and why they are there for the most part. The rules are laid out for the players as well as the DM. There is the occasional question, but multiple random on the fly bonuses and penalties are not typically part of the game system.So like I said, it takes a certain type of group who is just willing to go with the flow and not question the DM's whims as opposed to a group that likes concrete rules. These type of DM controlled modifiers are similar to the DM rolling his dice in private. Some players are ok with that, other players feel that DM whims of changing the dice results shouldn't be part of the game system. It smacks too much of DM railroading the story and results, and a lack of DM fairness to follow the same rules as the players.Personally, I think that decades ago, D&D combat systems were not as mature as they are now and DM on the fly adjudication in combat was more required. Anymore, the game systems are mature and flexible enough that this type of "seat of the pants" DMing during combat is less desirable, especially in pick up games.</blockquote>

Verification