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
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7999923" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Right, so when I said that 3.x had fixed DCs, that was correct, you just don't think it's all that important. When I said that going off the charts meant exercising rule zero, you prefer to treat this as a breathless concern rather than the rather boring point it was, because it allows you to dismiss the argument as overblown. When we talk about how procedure in play works, so long as you can pretend I'm too excited about a difference, we can just treat that difference as unimportant? Come on.</p><p></p><p>3.x procedures call for a roll whenever failure is possible. It sets DCs by the rule book, only allowing GMs authority to set DCs when not already set by the rules. </p><p></p><p>5e procedures call for a roll when the GM thinks one is necessary (and offers multiple paths for this, the middle path being only when a chance of failure, a chance of success, and a cost for failure exist, a markedly different set of conditions than 3.x), and then leaves the DC setting entirely up to the GM. </p><p></p><p>You dismiss this as a trivial difference. I don't see how. You further characterize the former as 'efficient', which, again, I don't see how as you'd have to look up each skill use to get the proper DC vice taking the tools in 5e and determining 'does this action sound easy, medium, hard, very hard, or nearly impossible?' We must clearly use different definitions of efficient. Further, even while dismissing the difference in play, you point out that a difference in play may be players not liking the GM having such authority over DCs and preferring the rules to set them. A remarkable statement. As I told [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER], I'm not responsible for your trust issues, and my players don't have such issues with my GMing, so this is a slightly offensive statement. Either we assume good faith play or we get into calling each other terrible gamers. I'm going with good faith play.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I can understand why you do not see large differences in play -- you have no experience running either game differently from each other, and so would not see any difference. I, and others, do have experience running the games differently and tell you that there is a large difference in play. You can take this however you like, but I have intimate understanding of how you approach play because I played that way. You do not have intimate experience playing my way, but proclaim yourself able to tell differences (there are none, according to you). I find this argument both common (in that you're not the only one to make it) and distressing. However, I remind myself that there are others that have attempted to make the change and they report good outcomes and see a difference. I do not need to convince you to continue to enjoy my game, or continue to consider how different approaches, even if apparently small in form, can lead to very different outcomes in play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7999923, member: 16814"] Right, so when I said that 3.x had fixed DCs, that was correct, you just don't think it's all that important. When I said that going off the charts meant exercising rule zero, you prefer to treat this as a breathless concern rather than the rather boring point it was, because it allows you to dismiss the argument as overblown. When we talk about how procedure in play works, so long as you can pretend I'm too excited about a difference, we can just treat that difference as unimportant? Come on. 3.x procedures call for a roll whenever failure is possible. It sets DCs by the rule book, only allowing GMs authority to set DCs when not already set by the rules. 5e procedures call for a roll when the GM thinks one is necessary (and offers multiple paths for this, the middle path being only when a chance of failure, a chance of success, and a cost for failure exist, a markedly different set of conditions than 3.x), and then leaves the DC setting entirely up to the GM. You dismiss this as a trivial difference. I don't see how. You further characterize the former as 'efficient', which, again, I don't see how as you'd have to look up each skill use to get the proper DC vice taking the tools in 5e and determining 'does this action sound easy, medium, hard, very hard, or nearly impossible?' We must clearly use different definitions of efficient. Further, even while dismissing the difference in play, you point out that a difference in play may be players not liking the GM having such authority over DCs and preferring the rules to set them. A remarkable statement. As I told [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER], I'm not responsible for your trust issues, and my players don't have such issues with my GMing, so this is a slightly offensive statement. Either we assume good faith play or we get into calling each other terrible gamers. I'm going with good faith play. I can understand why you do not see large differences in play -- you have no experience running either game differently from each other, and so would not see any difference. I, and others, do have experience running the games differently and tell you that there is a large difference in play. You can take this however you like, but I have intimate understanding of how you approach play because I played that way. You do not have intimate experience playing my way, but proclaim yourself able to tell differences (there are none, according to you). I find this argument both common (in that you're not the only one to make it) and distressing. However, I remind myself that there are others that have attempted to make the change and they report good outcomes and see a difference. I do not need to convince you to continue to enjoy my game, or continue to consider how different approaches, even if apparently small in form, can lead to very different outcomes in play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are there actions not covered under a skill?
Top