Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5463887" data-attributes="member: 957">Just to be picky, I already pointed out that inappropriate rolls could clearly be discarded.But it is still all an &quot;underlying framework&quot; when none is needed, and moreso, a lack of such is preferred.I guess you could say that in my game I use skill challenges.&nbsp; Except instead of 6 success, they all require 1.&nbsp;&nbsp; And instead of each success having a default of 1/6, they have no default whatsoever.&nbsp; I don't offer &quot;double credit&quot; or even &quot;triple credit&quot; for better answers, because the idea that these actions have discrete quanta of completion is still overly rigid and unsatisfying.&nbsp; Once the cumulative qualitative merits of actions, be they one or 18, meet the threshold, then &quot;1&quot;ness is decreed.&nbsp; When I want an open-ended spectrum, pointing out that 1 might actually be 2 is only a small improvement.Now you might also say it could be 3.&nbsp; How about 4?&nbsp; How about 19 and the target is 53?&nbsp; If you draw enough points you can make a polygon that the human eye can't tell from a circle.&nbsp; But why bother if you have a circle?But for now you have just &quot;improved&quot; the square up to a pentagon.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5463887, member: 957"] Just to be picky, I already pointed out that inappropriate rolls could clearly be discarded. But it is still all an "underlying framework" when none is needed, and moreso, a lack of such is preferred. I guess you could say that in my game I use skill challenges. Except instead of 6 success, they all require 1. And instead of each success having a default of 1/6, they have no default whatsoever. I don't offer "double credit" or even "triple credit" for better answers, because the idea that these actions have discrete quanta of completion is still overly rigid and unsatisfying. Once the cumulative qualitative merits of actions, be they one or 18, meet the threshold, then "1"ness is decreed. When I want an open-ended spectrum, pointing out that 1 might actually be 2 is only a small improvement. Now you might also say it could be 3. How about 4? How about 19 and the target is 53? If you draw enough points you can make a polygon that the human eye can't tell from a circle. But why bother if you have a circle? But for now you have just "improved" the square up to a pentagon. [/QUOTE]

Verification