Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8226944" data-attributes="member: 93670">That's not protagonism, supporting characters doomed to die often do amazing stuff in books tv &amp; movies, sidekicks like Robin &amp; even <a href="https://tick.fandom.com/wiki/Arthur" target="_blank">Arthur</a> have successfully climbed walls as sidekicks.&nbsp; With that example though 5e* does a particularly bad job of empowering the GM to feel like they can make things up while players have nothing to latch onto for a common&nbsp; frame of reference in what is plausible.&nbsp; in 3.x you had +2/-2 &amp; the bonus types so both players &amp; gm had an area where they could find common ground to negotiate how&nbsp; that back &amp; forth could work &amp; what benefits might go from doing it or doing it differently.&nbsp; Also in prior editions there was a lot less box text &amp; random tables to build things for the gm than todays HC&nbsp; campaign length modules because you were usually expected to work them into your own campaign &amp; refluff as needed to fit.&nbsp; Sure you might see x module is meant to be run after Y module, but even then there was more gm empowerment.&nbsp; &nbsp; All of that results in the GM being left with a dearth of tools &amp; resources to build the skills needed to handle the kind of activity you describe.&nbsp; Lets say bob succeeds in climbing over the wall.... so what?&nbsp; he escaped... and?...&nbsp; And the GM needs to do something on the fly for bob &amp; maybe everyone else to do&nbsp; or even worse it was written with two outcomes of climb the wall or fight the guards &amp; now bob left his buds behind to fight the guards without him if any of them fail to climb over too.&nbsp; If Bob wants to stand on top of the wall &amp; shoot the guards he has an idea how that can work in 3.x &amp; earlier the GM has experience+advice making up how it could help... in 5e bob has no idea &amp; the GM has &quot;hmm... it doesn't list any bonus for that&quot;* and maybe 4e, I mostly skipped it so won't go there &amp; shall pretend it never happened in this post.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8226944, member: 93670"] That's not protagonism, supporting characters doomed to die often do amazing stuff in books tv & movies, sidekicks like Robin & even [URL='https://tick.fandom.com/wiki/Arthur'][I]Arthur[/I][/URL] have successfully climbed walls as sidekicks. With that example though 5e* does a particularly bad job of empowering the GM to feel like they can make things up while players have nothing to latch onto for a common frame of reference in what is plausible. in 3.x you had +2/-2 & the bonus types so both players & gm had an area where they could find common ground to negotiate how that back & forth could work & what benefits might go from doing it or doing it differently. Also in prior editions there was a lot less box text & random tables to build things for the gm than todays HC campaign length modules because you were usually expected to work them into your own campaign & refluff as needed to fit. Sure you might see x module is meant to be run after Y module, but even then there was more gm empowerment. All of that results in the GM being left with a dearth of tools & resources to build the skills needed to handle the kind of activity you describe. Lets say bob succeeds in climbing over the wall.... so what? he escaped... and?... And the GM needs to do something on the fly for bob & maybe everyone else to do or even worse it was written with two outcomes of climb the wall or fight the guards & now bob left his buds behind to fight the guards without him if any of them fail to climb over too. If Bob wants to stand on top of the wall & shoot the guards he has an idea how that can work in 3.x & earlier the GM has experience+advice making up how it could help... in 5e bob has no idea & the GM has "hmm... it doesn't list any bonus for that" * and maybe 4e, I mostly skipped it so won't go there & shall pretend it never happened in this post. [/QUOTE]

Verification