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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
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: 5980128" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>Another point that's been fully circumscribed, but perhaps lost in the shuffle: If you don't have explicit stakes and intent, then you've got implicit ones. That is, you always have stakes and intent. Some results will be appropriate or not based on those stakes and intent.</p><p> </p><p>For example, let's say that it isn't discussed among the group, but it is generally understood that you are using skills in a defined way to accomplish certain tasks in the simulation. So it is assumed that Ride skill has a certain coverage--perhaps mostly from the rules in question, but maybe also from certain rulings that the DM has made in the past. Either way, when someone attempts to use Ride skill to escape, it's unlikely that the appearance of the gorge will fit. The intent is to get away. Roughly, the stakes are to use the horse to do it, or fail trying--with implicit Riding fail consequences. </p><p> </p><p>When this ends and what comes after success or failure is another question I'm not really touching here, as that could be any number of things.</p><p> </p><p>Contrast that to a game where the stakes and intent are more known. Let's say that the intent is to get away. Then a riding success gets the character away (or closer to it), and a failed check does not and/or ends the effort. In this situation, the gorge is entirely appropriate as a failure possibility because it directly counters the intent.</p><p> </p><p>Finally, consider the same game but with intent not to get away, but rather to, say, divert the enemy from your friends while they circle around behind the enemy and enter their fortress. The character decides to use Ride skill to burst through the enemy midst and draw them off for a couple of minutes--even if this means capture. In this case, on failure the gorge isn't much use. Because failure means not that the character got caught, but that he failed to divert the enemy to let his friends succeed. </p><p> </p><p>In those last two versions, all that really changed was the intent. But in the first, the gorge is respecting player agency while in the second it is not. Likewise, you can imagine an intent in the simulation version where the gorge might be more acceptable. However, because in simulation the intent is so often implicit--even glossed over, it would be pretty easy to misunderstand. Thus, the DM is going to typically avoid narrating color that <strong>might</strong> violate player agency, because he doesn't know.</p><p> </p><p>Or, as has often been suggested, the DM might ask. You can see this even in a straight old school Dungeon Hack, where a DM that picks up on an odd-sounding plan may ask for clarification on the plan, so that he can better understand what it is the players are trying to do. When all you are trying to do is pick the lock or sneak by the monster, the intent is fairly obvious. However, when the party splits into three parts, casts several different spells, and then tries some outlandish stunts with rope and 10 foot poles, it may be less clear. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5980128, member: 54877"] Another point that's been fully circumscribed, but perhaps lost in the shuffle: If you don't have explicit stakes and intent, then you've got implicit ones. That is, you always have stakes and intent. Some results will be appropriate or not based on those stakes and intent. For example, let's say that it isn't discussed among the group, but it is generally understood that you are using skills in a defined way to accomplish certain tasks in the simulation. So it is assumed that Ride skill has a certain coverage--perhaps mostly from the rules in question, but maybe also from certain rulings that the DM has made in the past. Either way, when someone attempts to use Ride skill to escape, it's unlikely that the appearance of the gorge will fit. The intent is to get away. Roughly, the stakes are to use the horse to do it, or fail trying--with implicit Riding fail consequences. When this ends and what comes after success or failure is another question I'm not really touching here, as that could be any number of things. Contrast that to a game where the stakes and intent are more known. Let's say that the intent is to get away. Then a riding success gets the character away (or closer to it), and a failed check does not and/or ends the effort. In this situation, the gorge is entirely appropriate as a failure possibility because it directly counters the intent. Finally, consider the same game but with intent not to get away, but rather to, say, divert the enemy from your friends while they circle around behind the enemy and enter their fortress. The character decides to use Ride skill to burst through the enemy midst and draw them off for a couple of minutes--even if this means capture. In this case, on failure the gorge isn't much use. Because failure means not that the character got caught, but that he failed to divert the enemy to let his friends succeed. In those last two versions, all that really changed was the intent. But in the first, the gorge is respecting player agency while in the second it is not. Likewise, you can imagine an intent in the simulation version where the gorge might be more acceptable. However, because in simulation the intent is so often implicit--even glossed over, it would be pretty easy to misunderstand. Thus, the DM is going to typically avoid narrating color that [B]might[/B] violate player agency, because he doesn't know. Or, as has often been suggested, the DM might ask. You can see this even in a straight old school Dungeon Hack, where a DM that picks up on an odd-sounding plan may ask for clarification on the plan, so that he can better understand what it is the players are trying to do. When all you are trying to do is pick the lock or sneak by the monster, the intent is fairly obvious. However, when the party splits into three parts, casts several different spells, and then tries some outlandish stunts with rope and 10 foot poles, it may be less clear. :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top