Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Critical Role Episode #26 - spoilers!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7465534" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>A couple observations.</p><p></p><p>First, yes, absolutely, the notion that a player voluntarily choosing to take a penalty would lead to players) not voluntarily taking penalties is baffling. </p><p></p><p>Also, yes, agree as well, inspiration rewards for GMs who do those are perfectly fine for these cases. No barter needed, as barter for inspiration iirc is not core rules anyway. It seems like possible the inspiration barter is being portrayed as an alternative or counter proposal when in fact rewarding inspiration "when you... give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw" is right there in the book and no special mention is made about that being "non mechanically" or somehow offered as a trade.</p><p></p><p>Simply put, the inspiration core in the book would seem to apply to a player who "gave in" with a mechanical penalty or not, as long as the GM say it as fitting his requirements.</p><p></p><p>Some GMs tho seem happy with letting their players choose between no penalty and full action or no penalty but non-action but somegow not wanting to allow them to choose some penalty with action.</p><p></p><p>One of my rules is "Ssy yes unless there is a compelling reason to say no" and to me "defending mu GM turf" is just not compelling enough to say no.</p><p></p><p>Then again, i also let my players of nearly 4 decades of time playing with me state that they are "doing abcdefg" and then make their checks on their own for skills and checks we all have seen countless times without making them wait for me to give them permission and inform them what the check and ability/skill will be, sven tho that to some is also violating the "gm turf" as defined by the sacrosanct "introduction".</p><p></p><p>Folks get hung up,on wierd stuff. I am no exception. </p><p></p><p>But i dont need to defend my turf in that particular way. Got no problem sharing a bit of that effort. Got no,problem letting a player choose courses between "full and fine" and "dont attack" even if that means they pick a mechanical detriment themselves when they voluntarily want to show their flaws.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7465534, member: 6919838"] A couple observations. First, yes, absolutely, the notion that a player voluntarily choosing to take a penalty would lead to players) not voluntarily taking penalties is baffling. Also, yes, agree as well, inspiration rewards for GMs who do those are perfectly fine for these cases. No barter needed, as barter for inspiration iirc is not core rules anyway. It seems like possible the inspiration barter is being portrayed as an alternative or counter proposal when in fact rewarding inspiration "when you... give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw" is right there in the book and no special mention is made about that being "non mechanically" or somehow offered as a trade. Simply put, the inspiration core in the book would seem to apply to a player who "gave in" with a mechanical penalty or not, as long as the GM say it as fitting his requirements. Some GMs tho seem happy with letting their players choose between no penalty and full action or no penalty but non-action but somegow not wanting to allow them to choose some penalty with action. One of my rules is "Ssy yes unless there is a compelling reason to say no" and to me "defending mu GM turf" is just not compelling enough to say no. Then again, i also let my players of nearly 4 decades of time playing with me state that they are "doing abcdefg" and then make their checks on their own for skills and checks we all have seen countless times without making them wait for me to give them permission and inform them what the check and ability/skill will be, sven tho that to some is also violating the "gm turf" as defined by the sacrosanct "introduction". Folks get hung up,on wierd stuff. I am no exception. But i dont need to defend my turf in that particular way. Got no problem sharing a bit of that effort. Got no,problem letting a player choose courses between "full and fine" and "dont attack" even if that means they pick a mechanical detriment themselves when they voluntarily want to show their flaws. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Critical Role Episode #26 - spoilers!
Top