Benjamin Olson
Hero
Bounded Accuracy has ruined me for games that don't have some form of bounded accuracy. I used to tolerate being on a treadmill, but it just seems like crude, bad design to me now.
I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think this is one of my objections to "faction play" as it usually happens--and how it's pretty explicitly described in the Ravnica and Theros books (where there is a number for service to a guild or rod respectively). I definitely agree on preferring such things not be a score.Instead of talking about the rules that we have that I like, I'd like to mention the rules we don't have. I know this is something other people will be diametrically opposed, but I'm glad we don't have anything like a social reputation, prestige or influence system. I want social interactions and responses to be very free form and natural. I never want players keeping track of "points" or "scores".
I don't have either of those books, but I know in the past it really changed the dynamics; people thought of how to gain the most "points" more than what their PC would do. I don't want RP to be a mini-game.I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think this is one of my objections to "faction play" as it usually happens--and how it's pretty explicitly described in the Ravnica and Theros books (where there is a number for service to a guild or rod respectively). I definitely agree on preferring such things not be a score.
I think these kind of systems can be helpful. But the GM should be the one tracking the points. And they shouldn't be telling the players anything about it.I don't have either of those books, but I know in the past it really changed the dynamics; people thought of how to gain the most "points" more than what their PC would do. I don't want RP to be a mini-game.
The "one source of advantage negates all disadvantage" does create some weird and stupid edge cases, so I prefer to run that as "if both apply, the dm decides how it shakes out" as the rule with "they all cancel" as the default guidance, unless that would be stupid.@TheSword already mentioned Concentration, so I'll mention Advantage/Disadvantage.
First, it's diabolically simple and requires no math. It's very quick to do at the table.
Second, it doesn't change the range of what you can do, just the likelihood of getting a better or worse result within it.
Third, because you can't get double advantage or disadvantage and a single one of one type will negate any number of the other type, it streamlines the whole thinking about play away from the "how can I add in as many stacking bonuses to my roll". That psychological change, while subtle, is just as big a factor as its speed and simplicity to me.
I couldn’t remember that term for the life of me, it’s been bothering me for hours.Bounded Accuracy has ruined me for games that don't have some form of bounded accuracy. I used to tolerate being on a treadmill, but it just seems like crude, bad design to me now.
I do track and make notes, but it's like the pirate's code - more of a guideline really.I think these kind of systems can be helpful. But the GM should be the one tracking the points. And they shouldn't be telling the players anything about it.