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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6570875" data-attributes="member: 27160">No, I'm suggesting that the rules describe what is known and fixed about the world. If someone (any player, including the GM) wishes to do something outside that then they must test to see if they can do what they want to do. Of course, sometimes the rules mandate a test for something they already cover, too - the (game) world is a complex and multifaceted place...Not quite. The theory might or might not be true, independent of the skill of the character. If it is true - or if some approximation or variation of it is true enough that the attempted task could work - then the higher skill character will have a higher chance of achieving what they set out to do. This could be either because they are able to do it with more power, or more finesse, or because they are better able to spot when the initial theory was not correct but some slight modification of it will work.If there is no chance of failure, the DC is wrong. This is why I said that 4E's level-based DCs actually work well for this - even at the highest levels, there will be a chance of failure. Unless, perhaps, you are a (demi)god - in which case making up rules of nature seems like it ought to be your daily bread-and-butter.Well, for one thing, as GM I really don't want all of the narrative control - what would the players be there for?Secondly, it's true that I could divide the resolution into two dice rolls - one to see if the thing is actually feasible, the other to see if the character succeeds at it. But what would I gain? I would lose the fact that the player is in the dark about whether they succeeded or failed because their theory was true or they just got (un)lucky - reducing immersion and depriving the game world of some of that mystery which even this "mundane" one posesses in abundance. I would introduce the risk of "metagame" factors such as the Expectancy Effect" (if <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans" target="_blank">a horse</a> can use it, I'm mortally certain that a roleplayer could!) and remove most of the sense of exploration for me as GM (because I would know whether the theory was "correct" regardless of the player's roll). But I don't see that I would really gain much at all.Well, in 4E, they don't. Some are more skilled ("trained" or just high abilities) in some areas, but every character is skilled in some areas. And using level-based DCs removes much of the "sheer power" effect. It's not really a "player empowerment" thing - it's just a balanced and fair way to test "unknowns" about the game world. Perhaps part of the thing is that I see it as "our" world, not "my" world?</blockquote>

Verification