Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6653237" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />&nbsp; I was thinking 17 Arcana checks in rapid succession, any of which land on an even number and a Wild Surge happens; roll 1d6 to find out what irrevocable, terrible thing happens that you would never, ever, ever (did I mention ever?) risk happening to you so why did we even make up this table that will never get used in the first place?1 - I was thinking of the pure martial archetypes Champion and Battlemaster.2 - If we do include Ritual Caster investment and/or EK magic, I'm still not seeing these capabilities on either the Ritual list or the EK spell list.&nbsp; Help me out?Tiny little tangential aside.&nbsp; While I do subscribe to Czege's Principle across the majority breadth of an RPGing experience, I don't agree with it as a logically unassailable, ever-present axiom.&nbsp; I'm a big believer (especially as prologue) of he player authored kicker in Sorcerer and Dogs.&nbsp; Laws' DMG 2 in 4e brought this indie technique into the fold for that edition's Story Now (!) generating noncombat conflict resolution portfolio.&nbsp; I find it works extremely well when skillfully applied, situationally, and with limited use.&nbsp; The trick is the resolution mechanics need to be robust enough such that if we're looking to find out if you break that bad habit (and I'm playing that bad habit at your behest), you can play you and I can play your bad habit and we can push hard against each other and find out what happens by way of the resolution mechanics mediating our dispute.Done well that is a hell of a lot of fun and legitimately creates emergent content/establishes backstory regardless of who authored/introduced the adversity.If the resolution mechanics are not robust or they're subordinated by force, then what is the point?&nbsp; But that stands regardless of whether I, as GM, introduced the adversity or the player did.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6653237, member: 6696971"] :p I was thinking 17 Arcana checks in rapid succession, any of which land on an even number and a Wild Surge happens; roll 1d6 to find out what irrevocable, terrible thing happens that you would never, ever, ever (did I mention ever?) risk happening to you so why did we even make up this table that will never get used in the first place? 1 - I was thinking of the pure martial archetypes Champion and Battlemaster. 2 - If we do include Ritual Caster investment and/or EK magic, I'm still not seeing these capabilities on either the Ritual list or the EK spell list. Help me out? Tiny little tangential aside. While I do subscribe to Czege's Principle across the majority breadth of an RPGing experience, I don't agree with it as a logically unassailable, ever-present axiom. I'm a big believer (especially as prologue) of he player authored kicker in Sorcerer and Dogs. Laws' DMG 2 in 4e brought this indie technique into the fold for that edition's Story Now (!) generating noncombat conflict resolution portfolio. I find it works extremely well when skillfully applied, situationally, and with limited use. The trick is the resolution mechanics need to be robust enough such that if we're looking to find out if you break that bad habit (and I'm playing that bad habit at your behest), you can play you and I can play your bad habit and we can push hard against each other and find out what happens by way of the resolution mechanics mediating our dispute. Done well that is a hell of a lot of fun and legitimately creates emergent content/establishes backstory regardless of who authored/introduced the adversity. If the resolution mechanics are not robust or they're subordinated by force, then what is the point? But that stands regardless of whether I, as GM, introduced the adversity or the player did. [/QUOTE]

Verification