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
Can a PC perform a miracle with a stat/skill check?
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="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6514468" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>I'm not going to have time to tackle everything here. I was really, really, really wanting to just focus like a laser beam on the design ethos and nature of various approaches to DCs and the GM's related usage of them in play. Please understand that every word of what I wrote above about GMing and system is directly in relation to that and that alone. It has nothing to do with techniques that follow from resolution procedures nor does it have to do with the GMing principles that underwrite those techniques. GMs will have a top-down agenda and principles and techniques for various component parts of play. I was trying to just dig down on this very specific component part of system, what it naturally presupposes, and in what direction it pushes play toward. </p><p></p><p>With that said, I want to try to quickly address the lines of evidence that have drawn me toward the conclusion that 5e's ability check system is predicated on DCs and actions expected to be declared that are a direct expressions of phenomenon and what is objectively happening in the gameworld. Hence, they are attempting to model process. @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a></u></strong></em> did a good job just upthread of outlining a few of the larger lines of evidence already. I'm going to go there and elsewhere to elaborate. @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=3400" target="_blank">billd91</a></u></strong></em> and [MENTION=43019]keterys[/MENTION] have good posts contrasting objective/subjective although I don't agree with all of bill's conclusions. I think the nuance has a pretty dynamic effect on play as it directly feeds into other aspects of play and component parts of system (of which I'm going to stay away from breaking down for just a moment as I want to focus this post).</p><p></p><p>First and foremost, several things that Mearls said about 5e's design ethos in articles during development were insightful:</p><p></p><p>1) Advocacy for "natural language" versus "metagame language/jargon" in the rules' text. </p><p></p><p>2) The "Narrative Cohesion" mini-essay which was sort of a kinder/friendlier version of the Alexandrian's Dissociated Mechanics essay.</p><p></p><p>3) Bounded Accuracy allowing for GMs and players to be able to "associate DC values with in-world difficulties."</p><p></p><p>Both 1 and 2 push my perception that 5e aims to (a) hide/obscure the metagame and (b) present the game-world's phenomenon (as understood by the 1st person perspective of characters within it) as tighty coupled to the game's mechanics. They're primary agenda is for "the feel" of the rulebooks and that the process of player action declaration be functionally governed by 1st person PC inhabitation with little or no regard for metagame concerns nor any player stance (perspective) fluctuation. That requires a process simulation foundation for noncombat action declaration. Which is 3 above.</p><p></p><p>In no particular order, here are the articles in question:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then, of course, you have the p58 rules for noncombat action resolution. Specifically, I'm referring to the ability check rules. The DCs are static and the do not change throughout the course of play. Easy, Hard, Nearly Impossible are objective terms for these static DCs that are unchanging throughout the course of play. Meanwhile, characters progress throughout the course of play and these DCs, mathematically, change in status for the player characters themselves (hard tasks become medium or easy, for example). Therefore, its impossible to say that these DCs are associated with the PCs (therefore subjective). Obviously, given all of the evidence above, they must be associated with tasks by an in-world estimation (objective). Furthermore, given the "natural language" angle that they've explicitly worked toward in their writing, it makes no sense for these very important DCs to suddenly eschew that approach and therefore be metagame-based, subjective DCs. </p><p></p><p>Finally, I look at the, again, "natural language" of the ability scores themselves and what they represent. All of the physical ability checks (Str, Dex, Con) use the "natural language" stating what the ability checks "can model" while the mental/intangible/social checks use the language "relect aptitude in." If they're using natural language, you don't use the terminology "can model" and "reflect aptitude in" without the implication being that the deployment of one of these abilities connotes a simulation of causal process in the game world. Otherwise, the language is anything but "natural."</p><p></p><p></p><p>So there is where I'm coming from on this very specific issue. I'll go further with my next post and talk about other stuff including the nuanced impact of subjective DCs in play (specifically how they promote cinematic, closed-scene based play, with hard action scenes + hard transitions, and can be adversarial to serial exploration play solely from 1st person perspective). I'll try to go further down the line into actual conflict resolution mechanics and contrast them with task resolution mechanics (and the varying GM principles that underwrite the play procedures of each). I think at that point I can probably address some other questions/protests that extrapolate more than I had intended in that first post about objective versus subjective DCs.</p><p></p><p>[sblock]My posting is unfortunately going to be difficult to be in-line any regularity. I spend the vast majority of my non-work time caring for a family member who needs "total care". My posting frequency, and surely my coherency of posting, has seen a steep downward trajectory as this has progressed. If I don't respond immediately or I don't respond to everyone, I apologize. I promise it isn't intentional disregard or disrespect. Its just extremely limited time and finite brain capacity augmented by increasing sleep deprivation.[/sblock]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6514468, member: 6696971"] I'm not going to have time to tackle everything here. I was really, really, really wanting to just focus like a laser beam on the design ethos and nature of various approaches to DCs and the GM's related usage of them in play. Please understand that every word of what I wrote above about GMing and system is directly in relation to that and that alone. It has nothing to do with techniques that follow from resolution procedures nor does it have to do with the GMing principles that underwrite those techniques. GMs will have a top-down agenda and principles and techniques for various component parts of play. I was trying to just dig down on this very specific component part of system, what it naturally presupposes, and in what direction it pushes play toward. With that said, I want to try to quickly address the lines of evidence that have drawn me toward the conclusion that 5e's ability check system is predicated on DCs and actions expected to be declared that are a direct expressions of phenomenon and what is objectively happening in the gameworld. Hence, they are attempting to model process. @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL][/U][/B][/I] did a good job just upthread of outlining a few of the larger lines of evidence already. I'm going to go there and elsewhere to elaborate. @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=3400"]billd91[/URL][/U][/B][/I] and [MENTION=43019]keterys[/MENTION] have good posts contrasting objective/subjective although I don't agree with all of bill's conclusions. I think the nuance has a pretty dynamic effect on play as it directly feeds into other aspects of play and component parts of system (of which I'm going to stay away from breaking down for just a moment as I want to focus this post). First and foremost, several things that Mearls said about 5e's design ethos in articles during development were insightful: 1) Advocacy for "natural language" versus "metagame language/jargon" in the rules' text. 2) The "Narrative Cohesion" mini-essay which was sort of a kinder/friendlier version of the Alexandrian's Dissociated Mechanics essay. 3) Bounded Accuracy allowing for GMs and players to be able to "associate DC values with in-world difficulties." Both 1 and 2 push my perception that 5e aims to (a) hide/obscure the metagame and (b) present the game-world's phenomenon (as understood by the 1st person perspective of characters within it) as tighty coupled to the game's mechanics. They're primary agenda is for "the feel" of the rulebooks and that the process of player action declaration be functionally governed by 1st person PC inhabitation with little or no regard for metagame concerns nor any player stance (perspective) fluctuation. That requires a process simulation foundation for noncombat action declaration. Which is 3 above. In no particular order, here are the articles in question: Then, of course, you have the p58 rules for noncombat action resolution. Specifically, I'm referring to the ability check rules. The DCs are static and the do not change throughout the course of play. Easy, Hard, Nearly Impossible are objective terms for these static DCs that are unchanging throughout the course of play. Meanwhile, characters progress throughout the course of play and these DCs, mathematically, change in status for the player characters themselves (hard tasks become medium or easy, for example). Therefore, its impossible to say that these DCs are associated with the PCs (therefore subjective). Obviously, given all of the evidence above, they must be associated with tasks by an in-world estimation (objective). Furthermore, given the "natural language" angle that they've explicitly worked toward in their writing, it makes no sense for these very important DCs to suddenly eschew that approach and therefore be metagame-based, subjective DCs. Finally, I look at the, again, "natural language" of the ability scores themselves and what they represent. All of the physical ability checks (Str, Dex, Con) use the "natural language" stating what the ability checks "can model" while the mental/intangible/social checks use the language "relect aptitude in." If they're using natural language, you don't use the terminology "can model" and "reflect aptitude in" without the implication being that the deployment of one of these abilities connotes a simulation of causal process in the game world. Otherwise, the language is anything but "natural." So there is where I'm coming from on this very specific issue. I'll go further with my next post and talk about other stuff including the nuanced impact of subjective DCs in play (specifically how they promote cinematic, closed-scene based play, with hard action scenes + hard transitions, and can be adversarial to serial exploration play solely from 1st person perspective). I'll try to go further down the line into actual conflict resolution mechanics and contrast them with task resolution mechanics (and the varying GM principles that underwrite the play procedures of each). I think at that point I can probably address some other questions/protests that extrapolate more than I had intended in that first post about objective versus subjective DCs. [sblock]My posting is unfortunately going to be difficult to be in-line any regularity. I spend the vast majority of my non-work time caring for a family member who needs "total care". My posting frequency, and surely my coherency of posting, has seen a steep downward trajectory as this has progressed. If I don't respond immediately or I don't respond to everyone, I apologize. I promise it isn't intentional disregard or disrespect. Its just extremely limited time and finite brain capacity augmented by increasing sleep deprivation.[/sblock] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Can a PC perform a miracle with a stat/skill check?
Top