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 coming! 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
Are there actions not covered under a skill?
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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7999884" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Yes! Sweet progress! I’m glad that last post was helpful.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, the fact that you don’t view specifics about what the character is doing as necessary and grokk it as immersive rather than operational is another way in which our styles differ. I place the expectation of what I refer to as reasonable specificity on my players because my operation for determining the necessity (or lack thereof), difficulty, and type of check to call for requires that information. When a player states an action, I ask myself “could what the character is doing possibly bring about their desired outcome? Could it fail to do so?” If the answer to either is “no,” I describe the inevitable results. If the answer to both is “yes,” I ask myself what the consequence would be if it failed. If there is no consequence, or the consequence is trivial, I describe the results of eventual success. If there is a meaningful consequence such as a loss of resources or opportunity, I ask myself whether the goal would be easy, moderate, or hard to achieve by the means described, and set the DC accordingly. Finally, I decide which of the 6 abilities would be most likely to help the character succeed in their goal, given the stated approach, and call for the check. Then the player can decide if they think any of their proficiencies would be helpful, or ask if they are unsure.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah. I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing - as you say, many players are quite happy with it. It’s just something I personally don’t enjoy as a player, so I try not to do it as a DM. Plus, having the player provide the approach rather than thinking it up myself is a bit of cognitive load off my plate.</p><p></p><p></p><p>For sure. The Inspiration thing is just one example, there are many ripple effects caused by this difference in adjudication style. And most people who have been DMing a long time have long since developed their own strategies for dealing with these ripple effects, such that we often don’t even realize we’re doing it. I probably have my own such DMing idiosyncrasies that I don’t notice cause they’re what I’m used to. But I found that after adopting this style, which I picked up during the 5e playtest, has lead my games to function more smoothly than they ever did before. YMMV of course, and if you’ve got a style you like that works for you, more power to you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7999884, member: 6779196"] Yes! Sweet progress! I’m glad that last post was helpful. So, the fact that you don’t view specifics about what the character is doing as necessary and grokk it as immersive rather than operational is another way in which our styles differ. I place the expectation of what I refer to as reasonable specificity on my players because my operation for determining the necessity (or lack thereof), difficulty, and type of check to call for requires that information. When a player states an action, I ask myself “could what the character is doing possibly bring about their desired outcome? Could it fail to do so?” If the answer to either is “no,” I describe the inevitable results. If the answer to both is “yes,” I ask myself what the consequence would be if it failed. If there is no consequence, or the consequence is trivial, I describe the results of eventual success. If there is a meaningful consequence such as a loss of resources or opportunity, I ask myself whether the goal would be easy, moderate, or hard to achieve by the means described, and set the DC accordingly. Finally, I decide which of the 6 abilities would be most likely to help the character succeed in their goal, given the stated approach, and call for the check. Then the player can decide if they think any of their proficiencies would be helpful, or ask if they are unsure. Yeah. I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing - as you say, many players are quite happy with it. It’s just something I personally don’t enjoy as a player, so I try not to do it as a DM. Plus, having the player provide the approach rather than thinking it up myself is a bit of cognitive load off my plate. For sure. The Inspiration thing is just one example, there are many ripple effects caused by this difference in adjudication style. And most people who have been DMing a long time have long since developed their own strategies for dealing with these ripple effects, such that we often don’t even realize we’re doing it. I probably have my own such DMing idiosyncrasies that I don’t notice cause they’re what I’m used to. But I found that after adopting this style, which I picked up during the 5e playtest, has lead my games to function more smoothly than they ever did before. YMMV of course, and if you’ve got a style you like that works for you, more power to you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are there actions not covered under a skill?
Top