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 coming! 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
*TTRPGs General
Legends and Lore : The Fine Art of Dungeon Mastering
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="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5678245" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>If you deliberately set out to design a set of rules that can be easily tweaked to cater to both those who want something hard and fast, versus those who want to let the DM roll with it ... you could do a whole lot worse than some tiered labels.</p><p> </p><p>If a skill level is "Journeyman" or "Expert" or "Master"--obviously that raises the question of what does each label mean in the game. But since the game is simply slapping that label on each place that it applies, the meaning is indirect. Being indirect, it can be supplied elsewhere, in one good place, and thus easily swapped for something else.</p><p> </p><p>If you want it to mean details, then you reduce each label down to a mathematical formula (or in a pinch where the formula doesn't quite work on the edge cases, a chart). Then "Expert" <strong>means</strong> "DC 20" or "DC 25" or whatever. OTOH, if you want the DM to roll with it, then "Expert" <strong>means</strong> "Hey, I the DM eyeballed this and decided for some reason that it was an Expert level task." The default as suggested by Monte and presented by Mearls is inbetween these two. It expects some DM judgment, but it is providing guidance. If a module shows an "Expert" task, and the player has "Master" skill, you, more often than not, "Say Yes" and let them autosucceed.</p><p> </p><p>I believe what has been missed in a lot of this discussion, here and elsewhere, is this level of indirection and what it means. Despite that someone besides me specifically called it out, at least once. Yes, the indirection makes the whole thing <strong>slightly</strong> less wieldy for those that move away from the default. There is that powerful urge to say, "What's wrong with simply doing X and saving me having to think what 'Expert' means?" The anwser is there is nothing wrong from your perspective--provided that you win--that the game is collapsed into the level of detail (or not) that you want. I think history has shown pretty firmly that a lot of people are not going to win, no matter which way such a collapse happens.</p><p> </p><p>The same thing would apply to equipment costs and details. Here, it is a lot more tricky than skills, because the obvious, middle ground leaves out details that need to be handled somehow. To make them indirect, you'll likely need to abstract costs, and this is necessarily going to leave out the people who want the extreme. So in the presentation, you might need to combine both methods. For a sword, you might have to say Encumbrance was "medium (4 pounds)" and cost was "moderate (10 gp)". OTOH, it is possible that the abstract method could be the default, and the long list with details would only be relevant to people who wanted that level. In effect, the big equipment list is part of the detailed option.</p><p> </p><p>My only issue with listing keywords and a more detailed version at the same time (e.g. Expert (DC 25)) is that we'll never hear the end of it. Someone will complain at least once a week that the "expert" part is redunant. But I guess we will get complaints no matter what. So it might as well be something that can be answerd in a FAQ and then linked to each week. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5678245, member: 54877"] If you deliberately set out to design a set of rules that can be easily tweaked to cater to both those who want something hard and fast, versus those who want to let the DM roll with it ... you could do a whole lot worse than some tiered labels. If a skill level is "Journeyman" or "Expert" or "Master"--obviously that raises the question of what does each label mean in the game. But since the game is simply slapping that label on each place that it applies, the meaning is indirect. Being indirect, it can be supplied elsewhere, in one good place, and thus easily swapped for something else. If you want it to mean details, then you reduce each label down to a mathematical formula (or in a pinch where the formula doesn't quite work on the edge cases, a chart). Then "Expert" [B]means[/B] "DC 20" or "DC 25" or whatever. OTOH, if you want the DM to roll with it, then "Expert" [B]means[/B] "Hey, I the DM eyeballed this and decided for some reason that it was an Expert level task." The default as suggested by Monte and presented by Mearls is inbetween these two. It expects some DM judgment, but it is providing guidance. If a module shows an "Expert" task, and the player has "Master" skill, you, more often than not, "Say Yes" and let them autosucceed. I believe what has been missed in a lot of this discussion, here and elsewhere, is this level of indirection and what it means. Despite that someone besides me specifically called it out, at least once. Yes, the indirection makes the whole thing [B]slightly[/B] less wieldy for those that move away from the default. There is that powerful urge to say, "What's wrong with simply doing X and saving me having to think what 'Expert' means?" The anwser is there is nothing wrong from your perspective--provided that you win--that the game is collapsed into the level of detail (or not) that you want. I think history has shown pretty firmly that a lot of people are not going to win, no matter which way such a collapse happens. The same thing would apply to equipment costs and details. Here, it is a lot more tricky than skills, because the obvious, middle ground leaves out details that need to be handled somehow. To make them indirect, you'll likely need to abstract costs, and this is necessarily going to leave out the people who want the extreme. So in the presentation, you might need to combine both methods. For a sword, you might have to say Encumbrance was "medium (4 pounds)" and cost was "moderate (10 gp)". OTOH, it is possible that the abstract method could be the default, and the long list with details would only be relevant to people who wanted that level. In effect, the big equipment list is part of the detailed option. My only issue with listing keywords and a more detailed version at the same time (e.g. Expert (DC 25)) is that we'll never hear the end of it. Someone will complain at least once a week that the "expert" part is redunant. But I guess we will get complaints no matter what. So it might as well be something that can be answerd in a FAQ and then linked to each week. :p [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Legends and Lore : The Fine Art of Dungeon Mastering
Top