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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6566699" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Oh. It is just a detail to me. But one with a big impact (thus my initial example of a player death for lack of a rope). I have no idea what will happen in the long term, so keeping track of these details (details to me, anyway) can lead to extremely interesting situations, and ones that we wouldn't have seen if not for mechanics and tracking.I think this might be true (I'm not familiar with the RC) for standard "heroic adventuring in D&D" stuff. That is not my standard style of play these days (even if there's some crossover).I'm going to tackle these one at a time, for clarity. Sorry if this seems tedious.Better than many skill systems? Undoubtedly. Most nailed down? Strongly disagree. I think you can get a lot more nailed down... but, then again, see the list of things I wrote my RPG has rules for that D&D doesn't even really attempt (I left out all the stuff where they overlap, but mine goes more in-depth).I basically agree. But the GM is in control of how hard they are, still. What skills can be used in them. When to begin them (he can just keep the infinity rolls) and what the end goal is. None of which I see as empowering to the players.Again, I think that the system is a good idea. It's one that I think is a good addition to the game. I just don't find it particularly empowering to the players.I meant the whole "Subjective vs. Objective" thing; you know, DCs that level with the characters. The GM has the power to set the DCs, leading to players asking "how hard is it?" instead of just knowing from the book and taking action (without GM oversight). The GM determines what is or isn't possible, leading to players asking "can I do this?" instead of just knowing from the book and taking action (without GM oversight). Etc.If the players decided what the DCs were (Easy, Moderate, or Hard), what they could do ("it seems genre appropriate to me, so my Epic level Druid is going to use Nature to cause an earthquake!"), etc., that would be player-empowering. But by leaving all of those decisions to the GM, this isn't the case.Okay, I keep getting "this is more than other D&Ds had" as a response, and I want to make it clear that I'm talking to game design generally, and not "is 4e better in these areas than past editions." I think it definitely is better in some areas than past editions (including with things like skill challenges and stunts).But it's all in the hands of the GM. Not the players. This empowers the GM to allow stunts that are mechanically viable, but it doesn't really empower the players as much. If page 42 had been included in the PHB, open to player use, competitive with (or better than) class powers, and not subject to GM permission, then I would say that it's player-empowering. As it stands, it definitely empowers the GM to allow or encourage stunts, but it doesn't really give players that power.Not trying to sell it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Although, as far as pre-imagined things being crushed go, my game is probably much more open than D&D. It's point-buy at its base (though right now I run it as a class-based game; I made balanced classes using the point-buy system), so you can get a lot more unique things than, say, D&D allows at its base.Another note: the economy of kingdoms are still fairly abstract (though I know you only used this as an example because you don't know my system). I'm no economist. But yes, if you don't like the rules in any system, that would be a problem. I think this is why certain people play certain games and not others <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I have a head for rules. If I read it, I'll probably remember it as long as I stay engaged with that system. And 320 pages is much, much more manageable for me than 1,000 pages of base D&D (PH, DMG, MM), not counting all the other things that I'd want to use that other books have. How does anyone find anything there? Familiarity with the system, I'd imagine.Agree to disagree, then <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I could see rules as rigid, bad, worthless, or whatever, but as a player, I don't think I'd ever look at a rule that helped give me power and take it away from the whims of a GM and say that it was disempowering. Oooh, agree to disagree again. While 4e combat is fun, I find non-combat to be the part where I'm flailing the most as the GM, because there's no real support system compared to what I'm used to (and non-combat is about 90% of my other campaign).They'd roll with it, but would definitely want to know what's going on. They'd accept me not telling them, though. Which I think is a good sign.I just don't like assuming table dynamics when talking about game design. Like, I'm honestly glad that it works for your group so well (and the majority of posters in this thread, I'd imagine), but I've had players where that wasn't the case, even in 4e (the Warpriest's last 4e campaign before mine, the Monk's last 4e campaign before mine, my friend who played as a Cleric in one campaign before I ever even ran 4e).If that last sentence of yours was a rule, then that would be player-empowering. Some sort of system where they get to choose the DC (Easy, Moderate, or Hard), but there's consequences on each. Maybe Easy is "partial success" where the GM has the right to hold something back, tack on a catch, or throw in a complication. Moderate could be a standard success (you got what you wanted), while Hard would be great success (something extra, etc.). That'd definitely be more empowering to the players, in my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification