Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9017905" data-attributes="member: 6690965">That is exactly what I mean by illusory, and runs exactly counter to the sort of gameplay I just described. &quot;Challenge&quot; isn't a function of rolling a 13 on a 20 sided die, it's in stringing together a set of action declarations that achieve the outcome you want with the least risk or compromise. In a level scaling system, the expected breadth of declarable actions and their relative impact should increase as the players increase in level, not remain static in relationship to a palette swapped setting. If a character is getting better at something, (say, picking locks) the number of locks they risk not being able to open should decrease as their capabilities expand, not remain static as the fiction changes to meet them.This is not a problem in games that don't particularly focus on advancement, though, I rather like advancement as it provides the most tangible change to the kind of game being played.I did say it gets quite a bit thinner if you remove half of the non-combat rules as incompatible with my stated goals, in direct response to &quot;that sounds like a call to play 4e.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 9017905, member: 6690965"] That is exactly what I mean by illusory, and runs exactly counter to the sort of gameplay I just described. "Challenge" isn't a function of rolling a 13 on a 20 sided die, it's in stringing together a set of action declarations that achieve the outcome you want with the least risk or compromise. In a level scaling system, the expected breadth of declarable actions and their relative impact should increase as the players increase in level, not remain static in relationship to a palette swapped setting. If a character is getting better at something, (say, picking locks) the number of locks they risk not being able to open should decrease as their capabilities expand, not remain static as the fiction changes to meet them. This is not a problem in games that don't particularly focus on advancement, though, I rather like advancement as it provides the most tangible change to the kind of game being played. I did say it gets quite a bit thinner if you remove half of the non-combat rules as incompatible with my stated goals, in direct response to "that sounds like a call to play 4e." [/QUOTE]

Verification