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
Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?
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="BryonD" data-source="post: 5794031" data-attributes="member: 957"><p>I was more specific than that and I was was replying to a more specific comment from you.</p><p></p><p>You stated that no matter what the heroes would arrive "just in time".</p><p>To which I replied that the unavoidable consequence of this is that no failure on the part of the PCs will ever prevent them from arriving in time and thus no success on the part of the PCs may ever contribute to their actually achieving getting there on time.</p><p>Further because you described this as a fundamental part of good DMing, scenarios that fall in this same category will have the same pattern.</p><p>I assume you assure the PCs "arrive just in time" every time it is important.</p><p>Thus the PCs can never fail to arrive on time.</p><p>Thus the PCs can never win credit for arriving on time through their own success.</p><p></p><p>It absolutely follows.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I am saying if you use the rule "they will get there on time" then it is absolutely true that no action will have any consequence against or for that. And because you present it as a perpetual guide for good DMing, it is clear that this will happen over and over.</p><p></p><p>Thus when A:B.</p><p>Now, you point out that they may not save the prisoner and this has a long term consequence and claims that demonstrates that I am wrong.</p><p>It does not.</p><p>When A:B is still true and the implication remains that A is still very common. </p><p>But all you have said is "when not A, maybe not B". That doesn't contradict "when A:B". It just says that "getting there on time" was a goal for which you used A and saving the prisoner was a goal for which you didn't. I'm saying A is bad and you attempt to contradict that is to provide an example of how it isn't bad when you don't use it.</p><p></p><p>This following is speculative, but I think it is fair. If you are the kind of DM that is going to use "they will get there no matter what" AND it was true that the prisoner surviving was really critical to the future of the campaign then you may very well also apply the same "they will... " control. The fact that you didn't is a very good thing. The less you use a bad rule then the less the badness of the rule matters. But not using a bad rule in a given situation does nothing to make it any less bad on its own merits.</p><p></p><p>Getting there on time is the apples. Saving the prisoner is the sugar. You are saying you still have sugar, therefore your apple pie is still fine. I'm saying that your sugar is very nice, but without apples, you don't have apple pie.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I jumped in here when you very specifically made a comment critical of simulation and the point was about a fast hero. The context was calculating the speed of the hero to see if he could get there in time or not. I believe you called not getting there an off-screen failure. You declared it a bad thing and said the hero should always get there in time.</p><p></p><p>I'm disputing THAT statement. And I'm including any other situation under which it may apply. For example, if saving the princess later required that the prisoner be saved now then failure to save him now would be an off-screen failure with the princess later on just the same as not getting there on time is an off-screen failure now. The fact they they were unable to get there on time now is the result of on-screen actions taken before, just as whether or not the prisoner lives is the result of on-screen actions now. If the actions now should have long term consequences, such as being unable to save the princess, why shouldn't actions that happened before have long term consequences such as not being able to get there on time?</p><p></p><p>At best you are saying that the long term consequences of actions at at the DM's whim. If you might say that nothing will prevent them from getting there, then you might say nothing will prevent them from being able to save the princess. Failure to save the prisoner doesn't have a consequence because it has no more implicit consequence than whether you were able to get there on time or not. The only difference is the DM whim allowed one thing to matter and the other to not.</p><p></p><p>No comment on how or why that makes the game more fun to you. I'm not arguing that.</p><p></p><p>But in the end it is simply logical that in a game in which the players actions control whether or not they got there on time they have more credit for saving the one prisoner than in a game in which getting there on time was predestined. And regardless of what you prefer, it should be clear enough for you to see why someone would prefer that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5794031, member: 957"] I was more specific than that and I was was replying to a more specific comment from you. You stated that no matter what the heroes would arrive "just in time". To which I replied that the unavoidable consequence of this is that no failure on the part of the PCs will ever prevent them from arriving in time and thus no success on the part of the PCs may ever contribute to their actually achieving getting there on time. Further because you described this as a fundamental part of good DMing, scenarios that fall in this same category will have the same pattern. I assume you assure the PCs "arrive just in time" every time it is important. Thus the PCs can never fail to arrive on time. Thus the PCs can never win credit for arriving on time through their own success. It absolutely follows. I am saying if you use the rule "they will get there on time" then it is absolutely true that no action will have any consequence against or for that. And because you present it as a perpetual guide for good DMing, it is clear that this will happen over and over. Thus when A:B. Now, you point out that they may not save the prisoner and this has a long term consequence and claims that demonstrates that I am wrong. It does not. When A:B is still true and the implication remains that A is still very common. But all you have said is "when not A, maybe not B". That doesn't contradict "when A:B". It just says that "getting there on time" was a goal for which you used A and saving the prisoner was a goal for which you didn't. I'm saying A is bad and you attempt to contradict that is to provide an example of how it isn't bad when you don't use it. This following is speculative, but I think it is fair. If you are the kind of DM that is going to use "they will get there no matter what" AND it was true that the prisoner surviving was really critical to the future of the campaign then you may very well also apply the same "they will... " control. The fact that you didn't is a very good thing. The less you use a bad rule then the less the badness of the rule matters. But not using a bad rule in a given situation does nothing to make it any less bad on its own merits. Getting there on time is the apples. Saving the prisoner is the sugar. You are saying you still have sugar, therefore your apple pie is still fine. I'm saying that your sugar is very nice, but without apples, you don't have apple pie. Again, I jumped in here when you very specifically made a comment critical of simulation and the point was about a fast hero. The context was calculating the speed of the hero to see if he could get there in time or not. I believe you called not getting there an off-screen failure. You declared it a bad thing and said the hero should always get there in time. I'm disputing THAT statement. And I'm including any other situation under which it may apply. For example, if saving the princess later required that the prisoner be saved now then failure to save him now would be an off-screen failure with the princess later on just the same as not getting there on time is an off-screen failure now. The fact they they were unable to get there on time now is the result of on-screen actions taken before, just as whether or not the prisoner lives is the result of on-screen actions now. If the actions now should have long term consequences, such as being unable to save the princess, why shouldn't actions that happened before have long term consequences such as not being able to get there on time? At best you are saying that the long term consequences of actions at at the DM's whim. If you might say that nothing will prevent them from getting there, then you might say nothing will prevent them from being able to save the princess. Failure to save the prisoner doesn't have a consequence because it has no more implicit consequence than whether you were able to get there on time or not. The only difference is the DM whim allowed one thing to matter and the other to not. No comment on how or why that makes the game more fun to you. I'm not arguing that. But in the end it is simply logical that in a game in which the players actions control whether or not they got there on time they have more credit for saving the one prisoner than in a game in which getting there on time was predestined. And regardless of what you prefer, it should be clear enough for you to see why someone would prefer that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?
Top