Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
At Your 5E Table, How Is It Agreed upon That the PCs Do Stuff Other than Attack?
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: 9069869" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>But the alternative is not no chance. The alternative is nothing happens, because your character has yet to actually do anything, because you haven’t declared any action.</p><p></p><p>Right, which is why I say this framing is misleading, because that doesn’t accurately reflect gameplay at my table, <em>at all</em>.</p><p></p><p>No. I’m saying (literally, I said these exact words) barring extenuating circumstances, if you say your character does a thing, they just do it. Only when what you say you do carries a risk of failure and stakes might you <em>have to</em> make a roll.</p><p></p><p>Indeed, it ought to go without saying, because I’m not saying anything particularly outlandish or revolutionary here. I’m just saying the players describe what they want to do and I determine the results, potentially calling for a die roll to resolve uncertainty, and then describing the results. Just like what the “how to play” rules say.</p><p></p><p>That’s a very strange assumption to make in my opinion; in a game where the premise is that the players can do anything they can imagine (obviously within the limits of what’s physically possible for their characters to do), I don’t think it’s ever safe to assume that the players couldn’t come up with a way for their characters to go about trying to achieve their goals that would mitigate the risk. Even if I can’t imagine a way, players can often surprise you with their creative ideas.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, that objection aside, assuming for the sake of argument that the player for some reason can’t come up with an approach that has little or no risk (I mean, adventuring is after all a pretty risky endeavor)? No, the degree of detail with which they describe their action has absolutely no effect on its possible outcomes. I care about <em>what</em> the character is doing, not <em>how</em> the player describes that action.</p><p></p><p>A player does have to describe the action with enough specificity for me to understand what their character is actually doing, otherwise I can’t determine what the potential outcomes might be, and I think this may be what some people object to. They prefer to leave the fictional action somewhat abstract, roll a die to determine success or failure (and sometimes degree of success), and then retroactively fill in the details of the action in a way that makes sense with the results the die indicated. Whereas I prefer for the action to be specified, so I can use the logic of the fiction as the primary determining factor of success or failure, and only call for a die roll when the outcome is still uncertain.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9069869, member: 6779196"] But the alternative is not no chance. The alternative is nothing happens, because your character has yet to actually do anything, because you haven’t declared any action. Right, which is why I say this framing is misleading, because that doesn’t accurately reflect gameplay at my table, [I]at all[/I]. No. I’m saying (literally, I said these exact words) barring extenuating circumstances, if you say your character does a thing, they just do it. Only when what you say you do carries a risk of failure and stakes might you [I]have to[/I] make a roll. Indeed, it ought to go without saying, because I’m not saying anything particularly outlandish or revolutionary here. I’m just saying the players describe what they want to do and I determine the results, potentially calling for a die roll to resolve uncertainty, and then describing the results. Just like what the “how to play” rules say. That’s a very strange assumption to make in my opinion; in a game where the premise is that the players can do anything they can imagine (obviously within the limits of what’s physically possible for their characters to do), I don’t think it’s ever safe to assume that the players couldn’t come up with a way for their characters to go about trying to achieve their goals that would mitigate the risk. Even if I can’t imagine a way, players can often surprise you with their creative ideas. Anyway, that objection aside, assuming for the sake of argument that the player for some reason can’t come up with an approach that has little or no risk (I mean, adventuring is after all a pretty risky endeavor)? No, the degree of detail with which they describe their action has absolutely no effect on its possible outcomes. I care about [I]what[/I] the character is doing, not [I]how[/I] the player describes that action. A player does have to describe the action with enough specificity for me to understand what their character is actually doing, otherwise I can’t determine what the potential outcomes might be, and I think this may be what some people object to. They prefer to leave the fictional action somewhat abstract, roll a die to determine success or failure (and sometimes degree of success), and then retroactively fill in the details of the action in a way that makes sense with the results the die indicated. Whereas I prefer for the action to be specified, so I can use the logic of the fiction as the primary determining factor of success or failure, and only call for a die roll when the outcome is still uncertain. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
At Your 5E Table, How Is It Agreed upon That the PCs Do Stuff Other than Attack?
Top