Search results

Nah, it's really just 6 things. It's the top line of each description of the ability checks in Chapter 7. One can stop reading right there and adjudicate an action with an uncertain outcome.

Remembering 6 things instead of 18 + 40ish things is easier in my view, and there are no extra steps. The DM is already having to decide which mechanic applies, if the outcome of the task the player described is uncertain. Only here, I need only remember 6 things instead of a whole lot more. I...

I only use the 6 ability scores. There are no extra steps. No thieves' tools in your games? I can't remember a campaign that didn't see the players doing that and more with tools. Especially since there's a whole section on how they can work with skill proficiencies in XGtE. I don't...

Seems to me remembering 6 categories of things rather than 18 skills and like 40ish tools is much simpler. If the task with the uncertain outcome and meaningful consequence for failure sounds like it's going to take some muscles, then call for Strength. If the wizard's thinking real hard trying...

It works better in my view if the DM just asks for the ability check (e.g. "Make a Dexterity check...") and the player adds the proficiency that aligns with what the player described as wanting to do, if the character has it. D&D 3e and 4e trained people to call for the "skill check" or see...

The silliness. D&D is inherently silly, and I like that.

Failing a check can be narrated as outright failure or "progress combined with a setback" per the rules, so something like "you discover they are lying, but they also feel they gave something away and now clam up" is supported by the rules. As well, I find if the social interaction rules in the...

As a player or DM, I don't care about "metagaming." Characters are free to act and think as their player likes for any reason they care to offer. If you were at my table, you could have told everyone present all about hags' weaknesses or whatever for all I care. But I change things from time to...

I expect that players, myself included, will try as hard as they can to be the best they can be within the limits of the rules. That's normal behavior as far as I'm concerned, so I'm not surprised by it. Luckily for my DMs, I'm not terribly good at it.

Fireball - the thinking man's spell.

It seems to me this is the space that passive checks occupy. I wouldn't want to be in the position of telling a player they can't have their character act suspiciously for any reason they are free to imagine. If the roll of the die is going to influence their decisions in a way that I don't...

I take it as it comes, and play the game that suits my needs in the moment. When I want something very much tactically oriented, then I play D&D 4e. When I want something somewhat less so, I play D&D 5e. Whatever matches best what I'm going for in the table experience. I tend to run games with...

I don't see how that logically follows "the first argument." It gives the player a chance to make an informed choice to avoid the danger of the trap. It doesn't mean they do avoid it, certainly not every time. But if they run afoul of it and think back to what was described and know they...

I don't think these things are mutually exclusive, but action getting even a little slow is for me not preferrable. Sandboxes are great. Quicksandboxes, where there's little action and you're interviewing quirky, cagey NPC all night trying to find the fun bits, are absolute session killers in my...

I also call for a lot of checks. But that's also because in a given 4-hour session, we are Getting Stuff Done. We cover a lot of ground. Bold adventurers are confronting deadly perils and often they can't remove the uncertainty of outcome and/or the meaningful consequence of failure. So there's...

My opinion of Matt Mercer's DMing skills really has nothing to do with my own approach or its merits. My approach isn't informed by anything Matt Mercer does or doesn't do. It's informed by a desire for clear communication, smooth execution, good pacing, and collaboration within clearly defined...

I think I recall you saying you give XP for "roleplaying". Is that right?

Yeah, I mean, why would someone who wants people to portray their characters well use tools like Inspiration to incentivize it?

Not that I can recall, no. I am not famous, and that would be a strange thing to be famous for in my view. But why would I want to leave it to a d20 to decide my fate if I can avoid that? @Charlaquin already admirably pointed out that we're talking about a difference of 2 words in some cases...

Or, as someone expressed concern about in another thread, they potentially become suspicious as to why you're asking for more description all of a sudden and engage in "metagaming" or "takebacks."