Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 2899734" data-attributes="member: 151">I'm not sure I'm exactly following the functional difference.&nbsp; On the one hand you're saying that the DM shoudn't influence the outcome of the action, which would suggest to me that you want the rules to handle it.&nbsp; But then you want the DM to decide what the actual challenge will be and set the difficulty level and context of the rolls...which is pretty much the same thing.It was that very concept that made me drop Castle Falkenstein's system in favor of porting the setting to GURPS, years ago.&nbsp; As GM, I could choose when to initiate a challenge and what form the challenge took, and since I ran through cards much faster than the players, I could virtually always decide (if I so chose) the outcome of any contest.&nbsp; This removed any sense of simulation from the game, which made it less fun for me and my players.Essentially what you're saying is that if the system is less quantified for your group, they are more willing to take risks.&nbsp; Is it possible that this is because the GM is more willing to entertain such ideas when he has no external metric, and thus they think (correctly or no) that they have a greater chance of doing such actions?Well, there our experience differs.&nbsp; I have met more than a few, and like to think I am one.&nbsp; However, again I think we may be comparing apples to oranges, here; comparing a cyberpunk-ish Shadowrun game to a D&amp;D game, motivation and settings-wise, things work on a very different level.&nbsp; Generally, D&amp;D players are actively encouraged to roam the countryside killing things...actions that, by definition, would get the average runner killed if done indiscriminately.&nbsp; In fact, that is what we're discussing in the example...the cops are coming to investigate and the players are on the run.&nbsp; This is a common Shadowrun scenario, but a rare D&amp;D one.&nbsp; Different genre, different conventions.Especially since I think that many players and DMs tend to ignore many of the combat options in the PHB, often concentrating on the style you mention.&nbsp; The grapple rules are a mess, but they do work...and we've had plenty of combats that end in a pin, trip and sunder.&nbsp; But if a DM sets it up so monsters never do anything but fight to the death...then sure, that's all that will happen.&nbsp; I don't see that indemic to the rules, but to the very concept of D&amp;D, which is going into a creature's lair, kiliing it and taking it's stuff.&nbsp; Mutants and Masterminds uses a variant of d20, and killing there is positively rare.&nbsp; Again, different genre.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 2899734, member: 151"] I'm not sure I'm exactly following the functional difference. On the one hand you're saying that the DM shoudn't influence the outcome of the action, which would suggest to me that you want the rules to handle it. But then you want the DM to decide what the actual challenge will be and set the difficulty level and context of the rolls...which is pretty much the same thing. It was that very concept that made me drop Castle Falkenstein's system in favor of porting the setting to GURPS, years ago. As GM, I could choose when to initiate a challenge and what form the challenge took, and since I ran through cards much faster than the players, I could virtually always decide (if I so chose) the outcome of any contest. This removed any sense of simulation from the game, which made it less fun for me and my players. Essentially what you're saying is that if the system is less quantified for your group, they are more willing to take risks. Is it possible that this is because the GM is more willing to entertain such ideas when he has no external metric, and thus they think (correctly or no) that they have a greater chance of doing such actions? Well, there our experience differs. I have met more than a few, and like to think I am one. However, again I think we may be comparing apples to oranges, here; comparing a cyberpunk-ish Shadowrun game to a D&D game, motivation and settings-wise, things work on a very different level. Generally, D&D players are actively encouraged to roam the countryside killing things...actions that, by definition, would get the average runner killed if done indiscriminately. In fact, that is what we're discussing in the example...the cops are coming to investigate and the players are on the run. This is a common Shadowrun scenario, but a rare D&D one. Different genre, different conventions. Especially since I think that many players and DMs tend to ignore many of the combat options in the PHB, often concentrating on the style you mention. The grapple rules are a mess, but they do work...and we've had plenty of combats that end in a pin, trip and sunder. But if a DM sets it up so monsters never do anything but fight to the death...then sure, that's all that will happen. I don't see that indemic to the rules, but to the very concept of D&D, which is going into a creature's lair, kiliing it and taking it's stuff. Mutants and Masterminds uses a variant of d20, and killing there is positively rare. Again, different genre. [/QUOTE]

Verification