Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 6649781" data-attributes="member: 6777737">And I would say: do not mistake the more complex framework as a necessarily more complete or more useful one.In all cases above -- 4e or 5e -- you do the same thing: You determine if it's reasonable, set an appropriate DC based on the task, and ask the player to roll (or roll yourself).&nbsp; Then you determine the appropriate effects.&nbsp; The only difference is that 4e has to tell you DCs based on level, and they have to tell you damage due to how damage works in the game.&nbsp; If you like the 4e table, that's great.&nbsp; I find it kind of pointless, and the fact that they took several years to get the math right is downright infuriating.&nbsp; To me, the 4e table was a straight jacket, and serves primarily to make the DM's ruling predictable... which actions like those you mention above really shouldn't be.&nbsp; I don't want &quot;creativity&quot; to become &quot;find the stage prop to abuse.&quot;&nbsp; Or, worse, for the improvised actions to become the rote tactic.&nbsp; Predictable improvisation is... I mean, no, it's not particularly different than a Barbarian's rage or Rogue's sneak attack, but improvisation rules shouldn't encourage players to be creative once.In my experience, players improvise when one player tries something unusual and it works.&nbsp; The framework doesn't make that happen, the DM does.&nbsp; When players see improvisation work, they start to expand their creativity.&nbsp; And what I want to reward is creativity, not encouraging the players to swing from every chandelier or topple every bookcase or carry around a mug of ale to cast into every thug's face.If p42 does it for your group's creativity, that's great.&nbsp; In my experience, it just added a whole level of, &quot;Oh, I guess I have to look at this table and resolve everything the same way.&nbsp; Everything's got to be translated into a Power, I guess.&nbsp; Can't have things being unpredictable.&quot;&nbsp; It was too many rules for things that don't have them because they shouldn't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 6649781, member: 6777737"] And I would say: do not mistake the more complex framework as a necessarily more complete or more useful one. In all cases above -- 4e or 5e -- you do the same thing: You determine if it's reasonable, set an appropriate DC based on the task, and ask the player to roll (or roll yourself). Then you determine the appropriate effects. The only difference is that 4e has to tell you DCs based on level, and they have to tell you damage due to how damage works in the game. If you like the 4e table, that's great. I find it kind of pointless, and the fact that they took several years to get the math right is downright infuriating. To me, the 4e table was a straight jacket, and serves primarily to make the DM's ruling predictable... which actions like those you mention above really shouldn't be. I don't want "creativity" to become "find the stage prop to abuse." Or, worse, for the improvised actions to become the rote tactic. Predictable improvisation is... I mean, no, it's not particularly different than a Barbarian's rage or Rogue's sneak attack, but improvisation rules shouldn't encourage players to be creative [I]once[/I]. In my experience, players improvise when one player tries something unusual and it works. The framework doesn't make that happen, the DM does. When players see improvisation work, they start to expand their creativity. And what I want to reward is [I]creativity[/I], not encouraging the players to swing from [I]every[/I] chandelier or topple [I]every[/I] bookcase or carry around a mug of ale to cast into [I]every[/I] thug's face. If p42 does it for your group's creativity, that's great. In my experience, it just added a whole level of, "Oh, I guess I have to look at this table and resolve everything the same way. Everything's got to be translated into a Power, I guess. Can't have things being unpredictable." It was [I]too many[/I] rules for things that don't have them because they [I]shouldn't[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification