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
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Common sense isn't so common and the need for tolerance
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="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7248319" data-attributes="member: 5890"><p>It might be if that was the chance of success for Joe average. Or an apprentice. Or even a typical trained professional.</p><p></p><p>But that's actually the chance of success for only 3 character classes in the game, in their double-specialties, for the most naturally talented individuals of specific races who are known to be good at such things.</p><p></p><p>Most characters who are supposed to be 'good' at the task in question will fail 20% of the time. And again - that's for one of roughly 4 things that a talented individual of a specific race does well.</p><p></p><p>Satyrn's answer goes some of the way to helping with that... simply renaming the difficulties helps somewhat. Not entirely, because that same "tricky" task can be done by the untalented, untrained peasant 50% of the time, but it definitely helps.</p><p></p><p>Personally I don't see much of a problem with the 'low chance of failure = 5%' granularity issue - that sort of discernment gets lost in the noise. It would be incredibly hard for someone who didn't know the mechanics being used to conclusively identify the difference between a 1% granularity and a 5% granularity during a typical game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>5e sort of breaks that too - automatic success becomes something the DM decides, not something the numbers indicate. The DM ruling automatic success or failure becomes crucial to the skill system not being ridiculous, and the game itself gives no guidance as to when those rulings should be made. Hence arguments about things like knowledge checks (where the stupid barbarian with no proficiency in arcana "has" to be banned from attempting the check, because his chance of success on a moderate check is still pretty good compared with the high-intelligence, trained wizard).</p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree and so does the DMG.</p><p></p><p>The game isn't a one-man show, and I am not infallible. Accepting some player input makes for a less confrontational and all-round better game in my experience.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 7248319, member: 5890"] It might be if that was the chance of success for Joe average. Or an apprentice. Or even a typical trained professional. But that's actually the chance of success for only 3 character classes in the game, in their double-specialties, for the most naturally talented individuals of specific races who are known to be good at such things. Most characters who are supposed to be 'good' at the task in question will fail 20% of the time. And again - that's for one of roughly 4 things that a talented individual of a specific race does well. Satyrn's answer goes some of the way to helping with that... simply renaming the difficulties helps somewhat. Not entirely, because that same "tricky" task can be done by the untalented, untrained peasant 50% of the time, but it definitely helps. Personally I don't see much of a problem with the 'low chance of failure = 5%' granularity issue - that sort of discernment gets lost in the noise. It would be incredibly hard for someone who didn't know the mechanics being used to conclusively identify the difference between a 1% granularity and a 5% granularity during a typical game. 5e sort of breaks that too - automatic success becomes something the DM decides, not something the numbers indicate. The DM ruling automatic success or failure becomes crucial to the skill system not being ridiculous, and the game itself gives no guidance as to when those rulings should be made. Hence arguments about things like knowledge checks (where the stupid barbarian with no proficiency in arcana "has" to be banned from attempting the check, because his chance of success on a moderate check is still pretty good compared with the high-intelligence, trained wizard). I disagree and so does the DMG. The game isn't a one-man show, and I am not infallible. Accepting some player input makes for a less confrontational and all-round better game in my experience. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Common sense isn't so common and the need for tolerance
Top