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
D&D Older Editions
The Best Thing from 4E
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="D'karr" data-source="post: 6564169" data-attributes="member: 336"><p>My take on transparency is rather simple. With 4e the framework gives the DM the tools to repeatably (that's the first important part) make sensible (the second important part) ad-hoc rulings that work. In addition, a creative DM can still take that framework and bend or twist it for other purposes. The disease track is an example of a piece of the framework that can be used in ways the game never intended and it still works well.</p><p></p><p>With the 4e framework the decision is still up to the DM, but he has a working tool. Whereas with other editions ad-hoc rulings still had to be handled by the DM but the odds for a particular task were either somewhat nebulous (randomly selected by feel), or fixed (static DC). </p><p></p><p>With nebulous odds the DM has to come up with the likely chance (either % dice, roll under, or roll above) from whole cloth. He uses feel for the likelihood of the task succeeding. In other editions I used percentage chance to determine success. Based on what I felt was the likelihood for success. This works well for illusionism because I can make the odds whole cloth. I can make the chance easy, hard or impossible totally by feel.</p><p></p><p>With fixed odds the DM comes up with the likely chance from a number that doesn't change for the task, or from a table that does not leave anything open to interpretation, possibly with a penalty or bonus modifier (DMs best friend +-2). This framework is better for stability as it does not rely on feel, but it hardly scales well as it does not take the ability of the characters or the opposition into consideration. For example using tumble to avoid an AoO has a static DC of 15. For a low level character that might be difficult, but the task soon becomes trivial, and it does not take the skill of the opposition into consideration. Instinctively, tumbling past a high level skilled combatant should be more difficult than against a low-level unskilled mook.</p><p></p><p>These inconsistencies are addressed within the 4e framework (page 42). To determine the chance of an appropriate challenge for a character use their level on the p42 table. To determine the chance against the opposition use the monster's level or it's defenses, which are already scaled by level. The DM can also assign a difficulty shift if the task if easy, moderate, or hard. He can still use the DMs best friend (+-2) or even assign the level completely independent of the characters and opposition.</p><p></p><p>The reason this framework is better, IMO, is that I don't have to make things whole-cloth by feel without a frame of reference. The frame of reference is very important to make it scalable - to keep the challenges viable for different groups, level of player experience (casual gamers vs. power gamers), and feel of the game. In addition, the players might have character side resources that stretch, bend or bypass this framework.</p><p></p><p>Using Tumble, as an example, with the nebulous odds I might assign 30% one time, but 40% another time, and if I'm feeling generous 60%-70%. This might, or might not take the character's proficiency into account. With static odds the chance is DC 15. This is soon trivial as the character's progress. </p><p></p><p>With the 4e framework the range of options available expands. The player might deploy character side resources to "tumble" that have no chance of failing (monk, rogue, and skill powers with shifts come to mind). This is where 4e provides player empowerment for the action as the DM is not involved in the decision (chance to succeed) for the tactic. As an alternative the player can describe the action and the DM can use p42 to assign a DC using the character's level, the encounter's level, the opposition's level, or even the action's level as a base. Alternatively the DM can use the monster's defenses as a base (Acrobatics vs. Reflex).</p><p></p><p>That is what I mean about transparency. A functional expandable framework that does not obfuscate the mechanics and that provides multiple balanced options to determine outcomes.</p><p></p><p>The first time I used the framework it seemed like more work, as I was getting used to the feel of it. Now it is almost instinctive. As a matter of fact the framework is such that a creative and experienced DM can run a game with the p42 table as the only resource. I've done it on several occasions where we wanted to play and had close to nothing. Even monsters were ad-hoc constructs based on experience and using the numbers on the table for reference.</p><p></p><p>The only change I would make to the 4e framework is to make it obvious to the players that this is also a resource. In my game I provide them with an at-will and encounter "card" that is directly tied to the p42 framework. That way they don't forget it exists.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 6564169, member: 336"] My take on transparency is rather simple. With 4e the framework gives the DM the tools to repeatably (that's the first important part) make sensible (the second important part) ad-hoc rulings that work. In addition, a creative DM can still take that framework and bend or twist it for other purposes. The disease track is an example of a piece of the framework that can be used in ways the game never intended and it still works well. With the 4e framework the decision is still up to the DM, but he has a working tool. Whereas with other editions ad-hoc rulings still had to be handled by the DM but the odds for a particular task were either somewhat nebulous (randomly selected by feel), or fixed (static DC). With nebulous odds the DM has to come up with the likely chance (either % dice, roll under, or roll above) from whole cloth. He uses feel for the likelihood of the task succeeding. In other editions I used percentage chance to determine success. Based on what I felt was the likelihood for success. This works well for illusionism because I can make the odds whole cloth. I can make the chance easy, hard or impossible totally by feel. With fixed odds the DM comes up with the likely chance from a number that doesn't change for the task, or from a table that does not leave anything open to interpretation, possibly with a penalty or bonus modifier (DMs best friend +-2). This framework is better for stability as it does not rely on feel, but it hardly scales well as it does not take the ability of the characters or the opposition into consideration. For example using tumble to avoid an AoO has a static DC of 15. For a low level character that might be difficult, but the task soon becomes trivial, and it does not take the skill of the opposition into consideration. Instinctively, tumbling past a high level skilled combatant should be more difficult than against a low-level unskilled mook. These inconsistencies are addressed within the 4e framework (page 42). To determine the chance of an appropriate challenge for a character use their level on the p42 table. To determine the chance against the opposition use the monster's level or it's defenses, which are already scaled by level. The DM can also assign a difficulty shift if the task if easy, moderate, or hard. He can still use the DMs best friend (+-2) or even assign the level completely independent of the characters and opposition. The reason this framework is better, IMO, is that I don't have to make things whole-cloth by feel without a frame of reference. The frame of reference is very important to make it scalable - to keep the challenges viable for different groups, level of player experience (casual gamers vs. power gamers), and feel of the game. In addition, the players might have character side resources that stretch, bend or bypass this framework. Using Tumble, as an example, with the nebulous odds I might assign 30% one time, but 40% another time, and if I'm feeling generous 60%-70%. This might, or might not take the character's proficiency into account. With static odds the chance is DC 15. This is soon trivial as the character's progress. With the 4e framework the range of options available expands. The player might deploy character side resources to "tumble" that have no chance of failing (monk, rogue, and skill powers with shifts come to mind). This is where 4e provides player empowerment for the action as the DM is not involved in the decision (chance to succeed) for the tactic. As an alternative the player can describe the action and the DM can use p42 to assign a DC using the character's level, the encounter's level, the opposition's level, or even the action's level as a base. Alternatively the DM can use the monster's defenses as a base (Acrobatics vs. Reflex). That is what I mean about transparency. A functional expandable framework that does not obfuscate the mechanics and that provides multiple balanced options to determine outcomes. The first time I used the framework it seemed like more work, as I was getting used to the feel of it. Now it is almost instinctive. As a matter of fact the framework is such that a creative and experienced DM can run a game with the p42 table as the only resource. I've done it on several occasions where we wanted to play and had close to nothing. Even monsters were ad-hoc constructs based on experience and using the numbers on the table for reference. The only change I would make to the 4e framework is to make it obvious to the players that this is also a resource. In my game I provide them with an at-will and encounter "card" that is directly tied to the p42 framework. That way they don't forget it exists. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Best Thing from 4E
Top