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="pemerton" data-source="post: 5980969" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Here is an extract from the example of play in the DMG (p 77):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Player 1: I’m going to try to handle this with diplomacy.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">"My good Duke, if you grant our petition for aid, it will not only help us complete our quest, but it will also secure your duchy from the ravages of the goblin horde for a season or more. Surely you can see the sense of that."</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><Makes a Diplomacy skill check and gets a success.></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">DM (as Duke): Hmm, well said. I do remember the Battle of Cantle Hill. Nasty business.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><The DM informs the players that the History skill can now be used to aid in this challenge.></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><Player 2 makes a successful History check, and her PC tells the Duke that she remembers his bravery fighting the boglins in that battle></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">DM (as Duke): I’m listening. Continue. </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><The DM says that Player 2's response is worth a +2 bonus to Elias’s check.></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Player 3: I get a +2 bonus? Great! I’m going to use it to help our cause with a well-placed bluff.</p><p></p><p>There are two elements of non-process, narrative causation here (both pertaining to the narration of success rather than failure).</p><p></p><p>First, the successful Diplomacy triggers rumination by the Duke on a past battle. This is not the process result of anything said by Player 1's PC. It is the GM injecting additional material for the players to work with, in response to a successful check.</p><p></p><p>Second, there is the granting of a +2 to Player 3's Bluff check because of something said by Player 2's PC following Player 2's successful History check. This is obviously not process simulation, for two reasons: (i) it is not as if, in the fiction, Player 2's PC's recollection of the Duke's success in a past battle makes him more easily duped (she has not got him drunk, for example, nor set out to get him off his guard); (ii) the GM announces that the +2 is available <em>before</em> Player 3 announces his PC's action. The +2 is happening at the metagame level, letting the players build up narrative momentum from check to check.</p><p></p><p>So to answer your implied question: that skill challenges were intended to be adjudicated in a narrative/metagame fashion (like the complex conflict resolution mechanics in HeroWars/Quest, for example) rather than via pure process simulations was clear from the beginning, although the techniques and details have never been spelled out - being left to be inferred from the (very underdeveloped) examples of play.</p><p></p><p>I think at least part of the reason is the one that chaochou has suggested, namely, a hesitation on WoTC's part to put all their cards on the table because they didn't want to be seen to be doing something too radical in comparison to the past.</p><p></p><p>I think Laws only got involved in the DMG2. And parts of that are cribbed almost word-for-word from HeroQuest revised (discussion of the pass/fail cycle, especially). The disappointing thing is that no attempt is made to adapt that discussion either to skill challenge adjudication (they are discussed in a different chapter of DMG2) or to 4e mechanics more generally (eg in 4e there is no immediate way to just adjust monster stats based on pass/fail - for the XP rules to work, for example, such adjustment needs to be mediated via level adjustments, change of status to a minion or an elite, etc).</p><p></p><p>I don't know GURPS especially well. What is the Default Skill Rule?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5980969, member: 42582"] Here is an extract from the example of play in the DMG (p 77): [indent]Player 1: I’m going to try to handle this with diplomacy. "My good Duke, if you grant our petition for aid, it will not only help us complete our quest, but it will also secure your duchy from the ravages of the goblin horde for a season or more. Surely you can see the sense of that." <Makes a Diplomacy skill check and gets a success.> DM (as Duke): Hmm, well said. I do remember the Battle of Cantle Hill. Nasty business. <The DM informs the players that the History skill can now be used to aid in this challenge.> <Player 2 makes a successful History check, and her PC tells the Duke that she remembers his bravery fighting the boglins in that battle> DM (as Duke): I’m listening. Continue. <The DM says that Player 2's response is worth a +2 bonus to Elias’s check.> Player 3: I get a +2 bonus? Great! I’m going to use it to help our cause with a well-placed bluff.[/indent] There are two elements of non-process, narrative causation here (both pertaining to the narration of success rather than failure). First, the successful Diplomacy triggers rumination by the Duke on a past battle. This is not the process result of anything said by Player 1's PC. It is the GM injecting additional material for the players to work with, in response to a successful check. Second, there is the granting of a +2 to Player 3's Bluff check because of something said by Player 2's PC following Player 2's successful History check. This is obviously not process simulation, for two reasons: (i) it is not as if, in the fiction, Player 2's PC's recollection of the Duke's success in a past battle makes him more easily duped (she has not got him drunk, for example, nor set out to get him off his guard); (ii) the GM announces that the +2 is available [I]before[/I] Player 3 announces his PC's action. The +2 is happening at the metagame level, letting the players build up narrative momentum from check to check. So to answer your implied question: that skill challenges were intended to be adjudicated in a narrative/metagame fashion (like the complex conflict resolution mechanics in HeroWars/Quest, for example) rather than via pure process simulations was clear from the beginning, although the techniques and details have never been spelled out - being left to be inferred from the (very underdeveloped) examples of play. I think at least part of the reason is the one that chaochou has suggested, namely, a hesitation on WoTC's part to put all their cards on the table because they didn't want to be seen to be doing something too radical in comparison to the past. I think Laws only got involved in the DMG2. And parts of that are cribbed almost word-for-word from HeroQuest revised (discussion of the pass/fail cycle, especially). The disappointing thing is that no attempt is made to adapt that discussion either to skill challenge adjudication (they are discussed in a different chapter of DMG2) or to 4e mechanics more generally (eg in 4e there is no immediate way to just adjust monster stats based on pass/fail - for the XP rules to work, for example, such adjustment needs to be mediated via level adjustments, change of status to a minion or an elite, etc). I don't know GURPS especially well. What is the Default Skill Rule? [/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