hawkeyefan
Legend
unless precautions are taken we DMs have charts of pregnancy chances depending on what creature types are involved in the action.
unless precautions are taken we DMs have charts of pregnancy chances depending on what creature types are involved in the action.
That sounds like a set of preferences that the BW approach might be a reasonable fit for.For me personally what I am often looking for is freedom from authorship. The power in part, but especially the responsibility. I basically want us to get the authoring out of the way so we can actually play.
<snip>
Basically I really only care about characters and scenarios. I'm a fan of everyone's characters and really cherish each PC, the setting, and the scenario. I am just not really fan of us putting up too many walls about how we are supposed to engage with each other.
Sure a DM could grant ad-hoc advantage on the saving throw (although I think ad-hoc adv/disadv is more common for ability checks than saving throws), but I don't see why the chance of success is pertinent? Even if there was a 95% chance to successfully save, when it does take effect the dragon fear is still both stronger than, and categorically different from, ordinary intimidation. A dragon can go up to a person it's never met and, without saying anything or knowing anything about them, have a chance (even if it's a small one) of inflicting terror strong enough to specifically stop someone from approaching (no matter how strong their motivation to do so) without actually incapacitating them or preventing them from doing anything else. Somewhere between 6 and 60 seconds later, the terror abruptly vanishes, and the person will not be afraid of that dragon again for 24 hours.Isn't there a saving throw against dragon fear in 5e? (There seems to be in the SRD.)
In his AD&D DMG, Gygax says the following about saving throw modifiers (p 81):
You may assign modifiers to any saving throws as you see fit, always keeping in mind game balance. . . if a character is standing in a pool of water holding a sword in his steel-gauntleted hand when the blue dragon breathes at him, you just might wish to slightly alter his chances of saving. In like manner, you might wish to give this same character one-half or NO damage from a red dragon's breath in the same circumstances. (In this same fashion you may feel no constraint with respect to allotting pluses to damage so meted out to players, adjusting the score of each die upwards or downwards as you see fit because of prevailing circumstances.)
Page 57 of the 5e D&D Basic PFD says:
You usually gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, or spells. . . . The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in onedirection or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.
In this respect, the approach of 5e seems broadly consistent with AD&D.
So if the GM thought that the parent's desire to save the child is a particularly strong motivation in the face of dragon fear, couldn't they grant the parent advantage on the saving throw?
But if the underlying premise of the game is that you don't control your character...
and the core mechanics are built around you not controlling your character, then I'm just not really interested. I don't want the premise of the game to be that I don't control my character.
It isn't the premise. It is a mechanical way to support the premise.
Sure. But, have you ever agreed with the use of the words "realism" of "verisimilitude" in a gaming discussion to justify how things should work? If no, then ignore the rest...
If yes, well take a thought to that. Because, a person not being in full and rational control in stress-laden or traumatic circumstances... is pretty realistic. Way more realistic than fire-breathing dragons.
I can't speak for @Bill Zebub, but I definitely agree that it's realistic for the character to not be in full and rational control. Personally, however, absent magic or magic-like abilities, I have a preference for how/when/why the character is not in full and rational control to be up to the player of that character, rather than determined by a game mechanic.Sure. But, have you ever agreed with the use of the words "realism" of "verisimilitude" in a gaming discussion to justify how things should work? If no, then ignore the rest...
If yes, well take a thought to that. Because, a person not being in full and rational control in stress-laden or traumatic circumstances... is pretty realistic. Way more realistic than fire-breathing dragons.
I agree. There's still a use for a character concept, however, as a starting point from which that evolution can progress; and note that concept can be predetermined before roll-up, or randomly generated during it, or a bit of both.For me personally what I am often looking for is freedom from authorship. The power in part, but especially the responsibility. I basically want us to get the authoring out of the way so we can actually play. From either side of the screen I don't even want to think about where the story is going and strongly prefer I am playing with are not really concerned with it either. Character concept is kind of a dirty word to me. Do you, but I would rather have the people I choose to play with focus on playing a fluid, evolving character that we all can be invested in.
As I said upthread, if the goal is to model the intricacies of the brain
I think you are over-stating the case in a way that's rather obviously inaccurate.