Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6651234" data-attributes="member: 42582">But a lot of non-combat does matter.&quot;Say yes or roll the dice&quot; is one thing, and tends to work fairy well. &quot;Say no without a die roll&quot; tends to be trickier, in a context where an important part of character building is assigning bonuses (via skill choice, stat allocation and boosting, feats etc) that are meant to be useful against DCs.This doesn't strike me as special to 5e, though. It's an aspect of 2nd ed AD&amp;D that I didn't like. After all, a common label for the GM creating the fiction that s/he wants to is &quot;railroading&quot;!I've never played 3E and have GMed a handful of sessions of it. It's had no impact on my play preferences.The trad systems that influence my conception of how out-of-combat is resolved are AD&amp;D Oriental Adventures, Traveller, Runequest and most of all Rolemaster. The &quot;modern&quot; systems that have influence me in this respect are HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP and 4e.Five of these systems use &quot;objective&quot;, &quot;world set&quot; DCs: AD&amp;D, Traveller, RQ, RM and BW. The others use &quot;subjective&quot; DCs (this is true at least for HQ in its revised version) - but the &quot;subjective&quot; DCs are not set by GM fiat, but by reference to encounter difficulty procedures (MHRP has probably the most complex version of this, in the form of the Doom Pool). The aspiration of these systems is that player resources interact with the GM-side mechanics to produce dynamic fiction that is not under the direct control of either GM or the players.&quot;Subjective&quot; DCs with no constraints on the GM side is not something I've ever encountered, outside of the context of a certain approach to 2nd ed AD&amp;D. And &quot;rules lawyering&quot; - a phrase that I first came across before 2nd ed was published - has no direct bearing on the working of either sort of system, at least in my experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6651234, member: 42582"] But a lot of non-combat [I]does[/I] matter. "Say [I]yes[/I] or roll the dice" is one thing, and tends to work fairy well. "Say [I]no[/I] without a die roll" tends to be trickier, in a context where an important part of character building is assigning bonuses (via skill choice, stat allocation and boosting, feats etc) that are meant to be useful against DCs. This doesn't strike me as special to 5e, though. It's an aspect of 2nd ed AD&D that I didn't like. After all, a common label for the GM creating the fiction that s/he wants to is "railroading"! I've never played 3E and have GMed a handful of sessions of it. It's had no impact on my play preferences. The trad systems that influence my conception of how out-of-combat is resolved are AD&D Oriental Adventures, Traveller, Runequest and most of all Rolemaster. The "modern" systems that have influence me in this respect are HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP and 4e. Five of these systems use "objective", "world set" DCs: AD&D, Traveller, RQ, RM and BW. The others use "subjective" DCs (this is true at least for HQ in its revised version) - but the "subjective" DCs are not set by GM fiat, but by reference to encounter difficulty procedures (MHRP has probably the most complex version of this, in the form of the Doom Pool). The aspiration of these systems is that player resources interact with the GM-side mechanics to produce dynamic fiction that is not under the direct control of either GM or the players. "Subjective" DCs with no constraints on the GM side is not something I've ever encountered, outside of the context of a certain approach to 2nd ed AD&D. And "rules lawyering" - a phrase that I first came across before 2nd ed was published - has no direct bearing on the working of either sort of system, at least in my experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification