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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 9855482" data-attributes="member: 7031982">Which is exactly what I'm advocating for: the individual options within the combat being player decisions/trade-offs.Yes that is precisely how I handle skill challenges: construct trade-offs.  But those are always situational and improvised.  Trading speed vs. risk isn't a general purpose climbing mechanic, because in lots of situations there's no time pressure.  Which I guess is really a roundabout way of getting to my rule of thumb: that characters will tend to succeed at regular tasks unless there is some kind of complicating factor.  If I can't think of a good, interesting trade-off that is a hard decision, I try to avoid dice rolling.So I guess what I'm saying is: yes, I do use some form of "skills" (even if it's just attribute based), but they tend to be like a single decision-point in a combat.  I still don't see a general way to make them like combat overall, with formal rules that govern the whole shebang, but more Dungeon World-like, where the player wants to do something and the GM says, "Ok, I'll make you a deal..."Yup, and I hate that.I skipped 4e, but I understand the AEDU concept (if I got those letters right) and it's exactly what I don't like.  It feels very video-gamey to me.  It's possible to find an in-fiction interpretation ("No...no...I only Cleaved once during the fight simply because there was only one good opportunity, it had nothing to do with a metagame restriction!") but it's a kind of gamism I don't like.  At least in my RPGs.  If an ability must be limited artificially I'd rather have it on a recharge die, which is easier to fluff as opportunity.  IMO.</blockquote>

Verification