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
Social Pillar Mechanics: Where do you stand?
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9292225" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Uh...no?</p><p></p><p>There is a middle ground you have neglected. What I usually call "sell me on it." That is, the player must still think. They must argue <em>as a player</em> for what they want. If I have an issue, I will question or investigate. If I think there's something missing, I will point that out.</p><p></p><p>Roleplaying the characters is a great way to do that selling-me-on-it diegetically. But it isn't required. I certainly <em>prefer</em> such tactics, and might be more favorable to someone who presented things that way. But as long as the player is actually thinking of how something can happen and what they would <em>describe</em> the character doing, even if they don't know how to do it themselves, that's enough.</p><p></p><p>This respects the fact that a Bard might be a silver-tongued seducer when the player can barely string two words together to talk to a handsome stranger: the player is still required to <em>have a plan,</em> they just don't need to explicitly say each individual seductive phrase, because the player probably can't <em>do</em> that, but the character 100% can.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But this seemingly ignores the possibility that there can be something more engaging than <em>merely</em> "DM says," while still being driven by players having plans and DMs asking questions and adjudicating. That's precisely what the skill challenge format does: it removes a lot of the arbitrary, "it ends when it ends" nature of the near-freeform approach, thus enabling much higher tension and emotional investment as the cutoff point approaches.</p><p></p><p>"DM says" is <em>too</em> loosey-goosey. It is, necessarily, formless and vague, driven by invisible priors and beliefs inside the DM's head. You never know where the finish line is, so it's nearly impossible to capture that "oh no, we're <em>so close,</em> c'mon dice, don't fail me now!" feeling. The structure of SCs provides just enough objective standard for everyone to <em>actually see</em> where things stand, and thus to feel dread or excitement at what may lie ahead.</p><p></p><p></p><p>...why on earth should the narration have no impact? That doesn't follow at all.</p><p></p><p>The narration affects the meaning, tone, and direction of the scene. Such things are vital. They are often part of what differentiates "no need to roll, that just works" from "hmmm, okay, but that will have a high DC" or whatever else. These things can still matter enormously. I really don't see how you've established that they're somehow totally irrelevant.</p><p></p><p></p><p>They aren't rails...I have no idea why you would call it that when HP do exactly the same thing, so many successful rolls against the enemy before they get too many successful rolls against you.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay. How do your players know what your intuition says? How can they <em>see</em> that they're on the cusp of victory or defeat, in advance? How can they strategize when the bounds of victory are necessarily hidden from them inside your thinkmeats?</p><p></p><p>Because that's a key benefit of the SC approach. It pulls the metric of victory out of the DM's head and makes it visible to all. Just as, for instance, the number of foes still left on the battlefield vs the number of HP the party members have.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9292225, member: 6790260"] Uh...no? There is a middle ground you have neglected. What I usually call "sell me on it." That is, the player must still think. They must argue [I]as a player[/I] for what they want. If I have an issue, I will question or investigate. If I think there's something missing, I will point that out. Roleplaying the characters is a great way to do that selling-me-on-it diegetically. But it isn't required. I certainly [I]prefer[/I] such tactics, and might be more favorable to someone who presented things that way. But as long as the player is actually thinking of how something can happen and what they would [I]describe[/I] the character doing, even if they don't know how to do it themselves, that's enough. This respects the fact that a Bard might be a silver-tongued seducer when the player can barely string two words together to talk to a handsome stranger: the player is still required to [I]have a plan,[/I] they just don't need to explicitly say each individual seductive phrase, because the player probably can't [I]do[/I] that, but the character 100% can. But this seemingly ignores the possibility that there can be something more engaging than [I]merely[/I] "DM says," while still being driven by players having plans and DMs asking questions and adjudicating. That's precisely what the skill challenge format does: it removes a lot of the arbitrary, "it ends when it ends" nature of the near-freeform approach, thus enabling much higher tension and emotional investment as the cutoff point approaches. "DM says" is [I]too[/I] loosey-goosey. It is, necessarily, formless and vague, driven by invisible priors and beliefs inside the DM's head. You never know where the finish line is, so it's nearly impossible to capture that "oh no, we're [I]so close,[/I] c'mon dice, don't fail me now!" feeling. The structure of SCs provides just enough objective standard for everyone to [I]actually see[/I] where things stand, and thus to feel dread or excitement at what may lie ahead. ...why on earth should the narration have no impact? That doesn't follow at all. The narration affects the meaning, tone, and direction of the scene. Such things are vital. They are often part of what differentiates "no need to roll, that just works" from "hmmm, okay, but that will have a high DC" or whatever else. These things can still matter enormously. I really don't see how you've established that they're somehow totally irrelevant. They aren't rails...I have no idea why you would call it that when HP do exactly the same thing, so many successful rolls against the enemy before they get too many successful rolls against you. Okay. How do your players know what your intuition says? How can they [I]see[/I] that they're on the cusp of victory or defeat, in advance? How can they strategize when the bounds of victory are necessarily hidden from them inside your thinkmeats? Because that's a key benefit of the SC approach. It pulls the metric of victory out of the DM's head and makes it visible to all. Just as, for instance, the number of foes still left on the battlefield vs the number of HP the party members have. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Social Pillar Mechanics: Where do you stand?
Top