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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&D 5e
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="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 7069388" data-attributes="member: 53980"><p>Having finished the article, here are my opinions on the matter.</p><p></p><p>The Core Mechanic section is a little self-evident in my opinion, but there's nothing wrong with making sure your ducks are in a row before delving into deeper analysis.</p><p></p><p>The section on "Approach and Outcome, Consequence and Cost" is how my group has always played, but it's probably useful to those newer to the game. All in all, I agree in playing this way. I do think most of this would fall under the category of common sense, and therefore not really within the scope of RPG design. If you can't figure out for yourself that breaking down a door is LOUD, well...</p><p></p><p>The section of "No Skill Rolls" and "GM Decides the Rules to Use" are again already how we play. I wouldn't hesitate to call for a Charisma (Animal Handling) or Wisdom (Religion) check under appropriate circumstances. And I much prefer the player telling me what his character is doing than asking if he can roll a check (because, depending on the circumstances, I may rule that what they want doesn't require a check). Still, it's not a bad thing to remind DMs about, especially newer DMs who might be too rigid in their thinking.</p><p></p><p>The "Saving Throws are Weird" section is fine, and I actually really like the The Reaction Rule. I'd never actually considered freezing time the moment that a trap is set off and asking the player how they'd like their character to react. That's a cool idea. Although I would allow Bob's character a saving throw to catch the edge of the pit as he falls. Just because you didn't guess correctly (especially lacking any significant clues) shouldn't mean you are automatically screwed. The character could still react on instinct and catch the lip of the pit (depending on the roll I might require him to drop something he is holding in order to catch himself).</p><p></p><p>"Knowledge Checks are Weirder" is another thing we've been doing for a long time now. It just seems obvious to me. That said, I've seen DMs who didn't do things this way so it's a good thing to mention to those who might not have thought of it. To keep things simple, I don't set a DC. The main determination is simply whether the character is proficient (or doubly proficient) in a knowledge (it's not something I have to track as I can easily ask the player when it comes up).</p><p></p><p>Passive DC starting at an 8 is an interesting idea, but not one that I think I'll use. 10 is fine and mimics an opposed check while giving the "attacker" a slight advantage.</p><p></p><p>I disagree with him on "Teamwork and Group Checks", and I don't care for his house ruling in that area. In particular, I think that "Worst" Group checks is a terrible idea. That just means that certain approaches are barred entirely to the party. Have a clumsy fighter in full plate? You can never sneak anywhere as a group unless perhaps you can convince him to take off his armor and attune to Gloves of Dexterity (or whatever). The current group check mechanic allows the sneakier characters to make up for the less sneaky characters, which enables cool scenes (the rogue's player can narrate how he creates a distraction to cover the fighter's noisy approach) and having all the players roll a check is only minimally more time consuming than having a single player do so. </p><p></p><p>Overall though, a well considered article.</p><p></p><p>EDIT:</p><p>Expanding on the Reaction Rule, I would probably give Alice's character advantage on her saving throw, but have Bob make his normally. IMO, it's better to reward a lucky guess than to penalize an unlucky one (plus, there are likely to be a very limited number of "right" answers and a virtually infinite number of "wrong" answers, so this approach is much more fair). If the DM foreshadowed the type of trap (gave the players several clues) then a harsher method of resolution might be appropriate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 7069388, member: 53980"] Having finished the article, here are my opinions on the matter. The Core Mechanic section is a little self-evident in my opinion, but there's nothing wrong with making sure your ducks are in a row before delving into deeper analysis. The section on "Approach and Outcome, Consequence and Cost" is how my group has always played, but it's probably useful to those newer to the game. All in all, I agree in playing this way. I do think most of this would fall under the category of common sense, and therefore not really within the scope of RPG design. If you can't figure out for yourself that breaking down a door is LOUD, well... The section of "No Skill Rolls" and "GM Decides the Rules to Use" are again already how we play. I wouldn't hesitate to call for a Charisma (Animal Handling) or Wisdom (Religion) check under appropriate circumstances. And I much prefer the player telling me what his character is doing than asking if he can roll a check (because, depending on the circumstances, I may rule that what they want doesn't require a check). Still, it's not a bad thing to remind DMs about, especially newer DMs who might be too rigid in their thinking. The "Saving Throws are Weird" section is fine, and I actually really like the The Reaction Rule. I'd never actually considered freezing time the moment that a trap is set off and asking the player how they'd like their character to react. That's a cool idea. Although I would allow Bob's character a saving throw to catch the edge of the pit as he falls. Just because you didn't guess correctly (especially lacking any significant clues) shouldn't mean you are automatically screwed. The character could still react on instinct and catch the lip of the pit (depending on the roll I might require him to drop something he is holding in order to catch himself). "Knowledge Checks are Weirder" is another thing we've been doing for a long time now. It just seems obvious to me. That said, I've seen DMs who didn't do things this way so it's a good thing to mention to those who might not have thought of it. To keep things simple, I don't set a DC. The main determination is simply whether the character is proficient (or doubly proficient) in a knowledge (it's not something I have to track as I can easily ask the player when it comes up). Passive DC starting at an 8 is an interesting idea, but not one that I think I'll use. 10 is fine and mimics an opposed check while giving the "attacker" a slight advantage. I disagree with him on "Teamwork and Group Checks", and I don't care for his house ruling in that area. In particular, I think that "Worst" Group checks is a terrible idea. That just means that certain approaches are barred entirely to the party. Have a clumsy fighter in full plate? You can never sneak anywhere as a group unless perhaps you can convince him to take off his armor and attune to Gloves of Dexterity (or whatever). The current group check mechanic allows the sneakier characters to make up for the less sneaky characters, which enables cool scenes (the rogue's player can narrate how he creates a distraction to cover the fighter's noisy approach) and having all the players roll a check is only minimally more time consuming than having a single player do so. Overall though, a well considered article. EDIT: Expanding on the Reaction Rule, I would probably give Alice's character advantage on her saving throw, but have Bob make his normally. IMO, it's better to reward a lucky guess than to penalize an unlucky one (plus, there are likely to be a very limited number of "right" answers and a virtually infinite number of "wrong" answers, so this approach is much more fair). If the DM foreshadowed the type of trap (gave the players several clues) then a harsher method of resolution might be appropriate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
AngryGM: Tweaking the core of D&D 5e
Top