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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bumbles" data-source="post: 4808423" data-attributes="member: 83457">Well, as I see it, you can avoid combat fairly well.  Sure the GM will have to make some decisions, but then the GM will also be making some decisions in combat as well.  Not that big an issue, and if you really wanted to do so, you could create some parameters to determine results instead of relying on the GM.Can add does not equal, however, that we should require it in order to proceed.  Which is what was suggested earlier in the thread, and which I find to be a bit overzealous. The question works just fine without the I, which I only chose because it made it sound better to me.  You need not have taken it as a literal I, but since you have, I assume you want it rephrased, so here you go:Why can't the GM, proceed from the player saying that they're going to try to scare the rival off, with an Intimidate check? Because the GM doesn't know the difficulty? But the GM can know it, if the GM has set the NPC's Will already, or the GM has decided what the encounter will be. The GM could even randomly determine the difficulty if the GM didn't care.Sorry, that just doesn't sound all that good to me, I prefer how I originally wrote it, but if I confused you with mixing literal I's and rhetorical ones, then I hope I have addressed your concerns.And just so you know, the I's here are literal.  But I really do hope you can learn to tell the difference on your own, as I may not feel inclined to make the distinction in the future.  I may also use other rhetorical pronouns as well.  All true enough, but not anything any of us here are going to implement anyway.  Unless somebody wants to chime in how they're actually about to begin product testing...no?Which is also a far cry from what anybody here has actually said as far as I know.  May be ignored or handwaved over is not the same as must be ignored.  Saying "I don't feel it's appropriate to require situational particulars in all cases" does not and should not be translated into "Situational particulars must be ignored in all cases" .If your objections have proceeded under that understanding, I can only suggest that you recognize the fault in your interpretation.  At least in regards my own words.  If you've read somebody else's words that way, I'd like to know who, so I can address them, as I do think that might be a tad excessive as well.Well, how would you like to model influence in the game?  What mechanical systems would you like to use?  Would you handle somebody who leads by inspiration different than somebody who leads by terror, and if so, how?</blockquote>

Verification