Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7443505" data-attributes="member: 996">I suspect it has something to do with it being a non-decision.&nbsp; There's no 'price,' no qualifiers, it turns into a rubber stamp.&nbsp; The player needn't be there.&nbsp; He could say &quot;I use help on whoever's doing stuff,&quot; and leave the table.I don't see why that has to happen, though...&nbsp;Nod, but taking the participation out of helping can also rob the game of that element.&nbsp; Adding limitations or risks to it can make it more of a decision, which is a form of participation, but you still have a point:&nbsp; that'd be a solution that works against itself. &nbsp;In most cases, Working Together will be more applicable than the Help action, anyway - as an aside, it seems to be a common issue among D&amp;Ders to conflate combat actions with non-combat activities (people try to 'ready' out of combat, but it has no meaning until initiative is rolled, for instance), when you're not acting in initiative order, round by round, you're not taking actions, you're just doin' stuff, the 'action economy' is in abeyance. &nbsp;Which certainly shouldn't be much of an issue in 5e:&nbsp; just narrate failure.&nbsp; Done.More likely either the desire is to give a sense there is a risk of failure, so that success 'means something' to the players, a roll with a fair chance of failure is a facile, but not terribly dramatic way to do that.Or, it could be to create a /greater/ sense of cooperation, that is to make the player of the helper more involved, or the helper more significant.&nbsp; I mean, if you could each be followed around by a completely ordinary commoner NPC who just helps you with everything, and get the same benefit - that'd deflate the contribution of a PC helper.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7443505, member: 996"] I suspect it has something to do with it being a non-decision. There's no 'price,' no qualifiers, it turns into a rubber stamp. The player needn't be there. He could say "I use help on whoever's doing stuff," and leave the table. I don't see why that has to happen, though... Nod, but taking the participation out of helping can also rob the game of that element. Adding limitations or risks to it can make it more of a decision, which is a form of participation, but you still have a point: that'd be a solution that works against itself. In most cases, Working Together will be more applicable than the Help action, anyway - as an aside, it seems to be a common issue among D&Ders to conflate combat actions with non-combat activities (people try to 'ready' out of combat, but it has no meaning until initiative is rolled, for instance), when you're not acting in initiative order, round by round, you're not taking actions, you're just doin' stuff, the 'action economy' is in abeyance. Which certainly shouldn't be much of an issue in 5e: just narrate failure. Done. More likely either the desire is to give a sense there is a risk of failure, so that success 'means something' to the players, a roll with a fair chance of failure is a facile, but not terribly dramatic way to do that. Or, it could be to create a /greater/ sense of cooperation, that is to make the player of the helper more involved, or the helper more significant. I mean, if you could each be followed around by a completely ordinary commoner NPC who just helps you with everything, and get the same benefit - that'd deflate the contribution of a PC helper. [/QUOTE]

Verification