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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I for one hope we don't get "clarification" on many things.
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6370626" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I sympathise more with prosfilaes here.</p><p></p><p>If players get to make choices about what descriptors/abilities are added to their PCs, but the GM has sole control over how those abilities actually translate into resolution at the table, then it seems to me that the players' choices were somewhat illusory.</p><p></p><p>A player in a B/X or AD&D game playing a magic-user spends nearly his/her whole time thinking about rules, though - s/he is thinking about spell descriptions, and saving throws, and memorisation slots, etc. It's just that most of this is also packaged into the gameworld fiction, so thinking about the rules is <em>also</em>, to some extent at least, thinking as your character.</p><p></p><p>In a similar fashion, the player of a thief in those systems thinks about his/her ability descriptions, and chances of success, all of the time.</p><p></p><p>If the players can't easily translate the fictional, ingame situation into terms that interface with their PC abilities, then what is the point of all those abilities? Even "free-descriptor" games like Over the Edge, HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP, FATE, etc still use mechanical techniques for handling this translation.</p><p></p><p>For what it's worth, I don't think I'm guilty of the confusion you diagnose - I think I deployed your distinction (or a version of it) in explaining the difference between 4e combat resolution and 4e non-combat resolution.</p><p></p><p>I agree with you about the role of damage in the game. My own feeling is that stealth in combat, especially when related to sneak attack possibilities, is closer to damage than to (say) what counts as a big enough bribe to get advantage on a CHA check.</p><p></p><p>My preference for Stealth rules is to make it clear what the basic parameters are - what do you have to do to activate stealth (eg partial or total cover/concealment?), and what do you have to do to maintain it (4e is pretty clear on this) - and then leave it up to the GM to adjudicate the relvant fictional positioning - what counts as sufficient cover to satisfy the requirements for activation and maintenance?</p><p></p><p>I think the use of phrases like "you can't be hidden while under observation" are particularly unhelpful. They have plagued D&D's stealth rules since Gygax's DMG entry on Hide in shadows. The problem is that they are obviously not literal - the whole point of hiding in shadows, or being stealthy, is to be unobserved/unnoticed while within someone's field of vision - and so require non-literal interpretations (like distinguishing between activation and maintenance). So why not just cut to the activation/maintentance distinction from the get-go?</p><p></p><p>I don't think this is quite right. 5e PCs still scale - stat gains, proficiency bonuses, possible feats and items, etc - so a GM still needs advice on what sorts of DCs can be expected to support what sorts of diffciulty/pacing outcomes.</p><p></p><p>Page 42 also had damage, too, and presumably 5e GMs will want that sort of advice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6370626, member: 42582"] I sympathise more with prosfilaes here. If players get to make choices about what descriptors/abilities are added to their PCs, but the GM has sole control over how those abilities actually translate into resolution at the table, then it seems to me that the players' choices were somewhat illusory. A player in a B/X or AD&D game playing a magic-user spends nearly his/her whole time thinking about rules, though - s/he is thinking about spell descriptions, and saving throws, and memorisation slots, etc. It's just that most of this is also packaged into the gameworld fiction, so thinking about the rules is [I]also[/I], to some extent at least, thinking as your character. In a similar fashion, the player of a thief in those systems thinks about his/her ability descriptions, and chances of success, all of the time. If the players can't easily translate the fictional, ingame situation into terms that interface with their PC abilities, then what is the point of all those abilities? Even "free-descriptor" games like Over the Edge, HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP, FATE, etc still use mechanical techniques for handling this translation. For what it's worth, I don't think I'm guilty of the confusion you diagnose - I think I deployed your distinction (or a version of it) in explaining the difference between 4e combat resolution and 4e non-combat resolution. I agree with you about the role of damage in the game. My own feeling is that stealth in combat, especially when related to sneak attack possibilities, is closer to damage than to (say) what counts as a big enough bribe to get advantage on a CHA check. My preference for Stealth rules is to make it clear what the basic parameters are - what do you have to do to activate stealth (eg partial or total cover/concealment?), and what do you have to do to maintain it (4e is pretty clear on this) - and then leave it up to the GM to adjudicate the relvant fictional positioning - what counts as sufficient cover to satisfy the requirements for activation and maintenance? I think the use of phrases like "you can't be hidden while under observation" are particularly unhelpful. They have plagued D&D's stealth rules since Gygax's DMG entry on Hide in shadows. The problem is that they are obviously not literal - the whole point of hiding in shadows, or being stealthy, is to be unobserved/unnoticed while within someone's field of vision - and so require non-literal interpretations (like distinguishing between activation and maintenance). So why not just cut to the activation/maintentance distinction from the get-go? I don't think this is quite right. 5e PCs still scale - stat gains, proficiency bonuses, possible feats and items, etc - so a GM still needs advice on what sorts of DCs can be expected to support what sorts of diffciulty/pacing outcomes. Page 42 also had damage, too, and presumably 5e GMs will want that sort of advice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I for one hope we don't get "clarification" on many things.
Top