this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
36 points (92.9% liked)
rpg
3208 readers
26 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Have to confess to not reading all that article BUT when I first played with the percentile checks from Basic Role-Playing, by the time I'd untrained the DnD logic from my brain I was fairly happy that it was a preferable way to do it. Rolling within your percentage ability to achieve something is simple, and you don't have to calculate anything which can slow the game down
Do systems like that account for the difference in difficulty between different tasks with the same skill? Skimming the article makes it sound like the author wants to eliminate DCs, but those strike me as important. Otherwise the acrobat in the party is equally likely to fail to vault a railing as they are to perform their complicated high-wire routine.
I'd also like a good answer. I feel like the author would say "you don't even roll to vault a railing, you just do it". But that still leaves a complicated but rehearsed high-wire routine versus "I run on water". I wonder if the author would simply say no?