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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Missing Rules
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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7482348" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>No it’s not...? Those words convey no information about how you are going about your investigation or what you are trying to learn by doing so. Given more context, I might be able to assume a goal and approach, but I would consider that overstepping my bounds as a DM. It’s not my place to assume what a player’s character does or why.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And that is exactly what I would do if a player told me “I make an investigation check.” I would ask what they are trying to figure out and how, and then I would tell them if an Investigation check was necessary to find out if the approach accomplishes the goal or not, and if so what the attribute, skill, and DC is.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Woah, dude, chill. I’m not trying to tell you what you think of Skills, if I misinterpreted you, I welcome you to correct me.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>“I (...) listen at the door” does convey enough information about what the character is doing for me to adjudicate a result. “Listen at the door” is an approach, and the implied goal is to hear something on the other side. “I make a Perception check to...” assumes that the approach of listening at the door has a chance of succeeding in the goal of hearing something on the other side of the door, a chance of failing in that goal, and a cost or consequence for failing at that goal.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I’m all for agreeing to disagree, but the grounds on which you disagree suggest that I have not communicated my approach in a way that is clear to you. I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m trying to express my point of view in a way that allows us to reach a mutual understanding, even if we don’t agree. Like I did with Reynard - puting it in terms of what the skills are for in my view allowed them to understand where I’m coming from, even though they still prefer their own approach, whereas you still seem to be framing my approach as a matter of semantic particularity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7482348, member: 6779196"] No it’s not...? Those words convey no information about how you are going about your investigation or what you are trying to learn by doing so. Given more context, I might be able to assume a goal and approach, but I would consider that overstepping my bounds as a DM. It’s not my place to assume what a player’s character does or why. And that is exactly what I would do if a player told me “I make an investigation check.” I would ask what they are trying to figure out and how, and then I would tell them if an Investigation check was necessary to find out if the approach accomplishes the goal or not, and if so what the attribute, skill, and DC is. Woah, dude, chill. I’m not trying to tell you what you think of Skills, if I misinterpreted you, I welcome you to correct me. Agreed. “I (...) listen at the door” does convey enough information about what the character is doing for me to adjudicate a result. “Listen at the door” is an approach, and the implied goal is to hear something on the other side. “I make a Perception check to...” assumes that the approach of listening at the door has a chance of succeeding in the goal of hearing something on the other side of the door, a chance of failing in that goal, and a cost or consequence for failing at that goal. I’m all for agreeing to disagree, but the grounds on which you disagree suggest that I have not communicated my approach in a way that is clear to you. I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m trying to express my point of view in a way that allows us to reach a mutual understanding, even if we don’t agree. Like I did with Reynard - puting it in terms of what the skills are for in my view allowed them to understand where I’m coming from, even though they still prefer their own approach, whereas you still seem to be framing my approach as a matter of semantic particularity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Missing Rules
Top