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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5555709" data-attributes="member: 42582">Related to Hussar's point - in many situations, at least in my experience, players like to know the odds of success of some attempted action (at least in ballpark terms) before committing themselves. So rather than the "believability filter", the issue becomes the "probability filter".To see how this point can come up outside the context of house ruling: Consider a new player who doesn't know the 3E rules very well, and who has his/her PC pick up two swords to start fighting twin-blade style because the PC's shield has been left behind and there are a hell of a lot of orcs between the PC and the exit from the dungeon.In my view, it makes a huge difference at this point whether or not the GM informs the player of such matters as: the penalty to hit for wielding two swords; the likely approximate AC of the orcs, given the armour they're wearing; etc. With this mechanical information, the player can work out whether picking up the second sword is actually increasing or decreasing his/her PC's chances of making it out alive.Likewise when it comes to house ruling and fiction-driven improvisation: if the players don't know what odds the GM is assigning, then it becomes very hard to know whether or not they are making rational decisions for their PCs. Of course, if the players and GM always agreed on what is probable and what not in any given situation, this wouldn't matter. But that is not the case, and doubly so when the probabilities that matter aren't just "easy" or "hard" but typically (at least for D&D) adjustments to d20 rolls that can easily end up doubling or halving the likelihood of success (eg stat check vs an average stat at +4 vs -4, which I believe is the range of modifiers suggested in Moldvay Basic).These issues are only compounded by differences in understanding at the table as to who is where, how big X is compared to Y, and all the other details which everyone often has only a hazy grasp of.For all these reasons I think that commonly shared mechanics can play a useful role in helping the players engage the fiction. And I also think it is poor GMing not to allow player takebacks once the GM has told them what the odds of some move are, when the game being played is one which gives the GM a free hand in believability/probability filtering.</blockquote>

Verification