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
5e* - D&D-now
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: 8525268" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This does not seem the same to me, at least as you describe it. The key words being "I", where "I" is the GM who then sets the DC.</p><p></p><p>In BW the obstacle is established via a set of descriptors, and the GM does not have any discretion to decide whether or not both success and failure are possible. This is why BW is able to tell players: if you don't like the current content or trajectory of the fiction, change it! (By using your Wises, your Circles etc.)</p><p></p><p>Perhaps one could introduce a rule, analogous to Wises, into 5e D&D. (Though I think there are features of the system which would somewhat push against that.) But to the best of my knowledge it is not there in RAW.</p><p></p><p>That's also before we get to failure results for the Wises check, which in the BW context contribute significantly to the nature of the experience. (More on failure below.)</p><p></p><p>As per my earlier post, this does not seem canonical to me, as we now have the possibility that a player is no longer deciding what their PC thinks and feels. (Which is also something that you seemed to include as part of 5e* in your OP.)</p><p></p><p>In BW, the Mending test is resolved like any other. So if it fails, the GM is required to narrate the consequences of failure having primary regard to the intent and secondary regard to the task. And in BW, every time a blow is struck in Fight! there is a chance of damage to armour (armour works by making a test: roll armour dice against Ob 1 + attacker's Versus Armour rating; 1s on the armour dice signify damage).</p><p></p><p>Those are elements of the BW context that mark the difference from the D&D play experience. In BW, the need for repairs is routine; but when the dice are rolled for Aramina's Mending it's as suspenseful as any other check. I don't see how that is the case for finding out whether or not the repairs take an hour or a day.</p><p></p><p>More fundamentally, I have never read an account of actual D&D play, nor myself had a D&D experience, that resembled what I've described. I've had experiences in RM that come close to the armour aspect (not the Evard's Tower aspect) but they break down because RM does not have as elegant a framework for either armour damage or repairs: it is held back by the clunkiness induced by its simulationist aspirations, and by its simulationist-induced lack of a general framework for narrating effective failures.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8525268, member: 42582"] This does not seem the same to me, at least as you describe it. The key words being "I", where "I" is the GM who then sets the DC. In BW the obstacle is established via a set of descriptors, and the GM does not have any discretion to decide whether or not both success and failure are possible. This is why BW is able to tell players: if you don't like the current content or trajectory of the fiction, change it! (By using your Wises, your Circles etc.) Perhaps one could introduce a rule, analogous to Wises, into 5e D&D. (Though I think there are features of the system which would somewhat push against that.) But to the best of my knowledge it is not there in RAW. That's also before we get to failure results for the Wises check, which in the BW context contribute significantly to the nature of the experience. (More on failure below.) As per my earlier post, this does not seem canonical to me, as we now have the possibility that a player is no longer deciding what their PC thinks and feels. (Which is also something that you seemed to include as part of 5e* in your OP.) In BW, the Mending test is resolved like any other. So if it fails, the GM is required to narrate the consequences of failure having primary regard to the intent and secondary regard to the task. And in BW, every time a blow is struck in Fight! there is a chance of damage to armour (armour works by making a test: roll armour dice against Ob 1 + attacker's Versus Armour rating; 1s on the armour dice signify damage). Those are elements of the BW context that mark the difference from the D&D play experience. In BW, the need for repairs is routine; but when the dice are rolled for Aramina's Mending it's as suspenseful as any other check. I don't see how that is the case for finding out whether or not the repairs take an hour or a day. More fundamentally, I have never read an account of actual D&D play, nor myself had a D&D experience, that resembled what I've described. I've had experiences in RM that come close to the armour aspect (not the Evard's Tower aspect) but they break down because RM does not have as elegant a framework for either armour damage or repairs: it is held back by the clunkiness induced by its simulationist aspirations, and by its simulationist-induced lack of a general framework for narrating effective failures. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e* - D&D-now
Top