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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7800123" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I don't want to say I'm very familiar with how the 5e DMG puts it. AD&D was definitely "make up a subsystem to simulate what would happen" and 3e seems to be "use the skill system to try to simulate what would happen". 4e talks about everything in GAME TERMS, which is where you want the focus to be. That was its power. 5e might talk about 'avoid rolls' (this is often a good start, but often I WANT rolls of some sort). I don't think saying that "multiple rolls really aren't a developed thing" is saying much. Deprecating and removing the SC system was really a poor choice in design, it thrusts the game back to the only other existing traditional paradigm, which is simply "roll enough checks that I, as GM, feel like its enough" and then the players wrangle with the GM because why not? I mean, we can easily have debates (as there have been 100's in the past) about what would be the ideal type of mechanics for an 'SC' system. I don't know that the 4e approach was the best specific choice in detail. It probably wasn't from the standpoint of being easy for existing players to 'get it' and use it without much friction. In other respects it is pretty solid though.Again, going back to 4e direction, clearly we can see a progression in the refinement of the SC technique from DMG1 to RC. RC-grade SCs are pretty good. Both sides have a pool of resources to pull from in order to either increase the odds of success at a cost, or to put additional pressure on the PCs. The understanding of plot progression at each point in the SC is much clearer, and the expected 'flow' of a challenge is thus much improved. Could a 'clock system' like BitD has, or some other mechanism like an aspect-based thing derived from a FATE-like game work better? I don't know, maybe.</blockquote>

Verification