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 LIVE! 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
Consequences of Failure
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: 7809741" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>If you mean predefined when you say implicit, I'd recommend a dictionary. Those are pretty far apart in the actual meaning department, so this would greatly improve your communication.</p><p></p><p>However, I disagree that "I roll Insight" is anywhere near as predefined as "I cast fireball." Also, there's the run that narratively describing casting fireball actually uses the same language as invoking the mechanic. If a wizards casts a spell that results in an explosive ball of fire, one could say the wizard cast a fireball spell, all without once invoking the mechanics of D&D 5e. That this description also invokes those mechanics just tells me, as DM, what things I need to check before determining success, failure, or uncertainty.</p><p></p><p>If "I cast fireball" cannot be part of an approach to harming an orc, then nothing really can be.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is because you've defined it away, not because it isn't done. Firstly, "basic" goal and approach as you've defined it is any action declaration where the GM can assume what is done and for what purpose. Does this actually sound like a useful tool for adjudication? It looks like a definition that's been so smeared as to make it apply to everything, which is a useful rhetorical method to strawman an argument into oblivion.</p><p></p><p>Goal and approach is defined as the method of requiring the player to provide both the approach and the goal of an action as part of the declaration. It's intent is to remove assumption and provide the DM with sufficient information to fairly adjudicate the action. What you've done here is say that you're going to define goal and approach as any declaration where the DM can assume approach or goal and thereby arbitrate based on what the GM thinks the PC is doing rather than what the player thinks their PC is doing. You've redefined the argument into uselessness in opposition of the intent of the method. You haven't discovered a truth, you've hidden one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And you'd be wrong. Because goal and approach is always engaging the mechanics. The mechanics are the DM deciding how to arbitrate the outcome, but that's still a mechanic. What [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] is minimizing, or, to put it precisely, what players in [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER]'s game are minimizing, is the need to rely on a d20 to get a success.</p><p></p><p>It's not like he hasn't be absolutely clear on this, over and over and over.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7809741, member: 16814"] If you mean predefined when you say implicit, I'd recommend a dictionary. Those are pretty far apart in the actual meaning department, so this would greatly improve your communication. However, I disagree that "I roll Insight" is anywhere near as predefined as "I cast fireball." Also, there's the run that narratively describing casting fireball actually uses the same language as invoking the mechanic. If a wizards casts a spell that results in an explosive ball of fire, one could say the wizard cast a fireball spell, all without once invoking the mechanics of D&D 5e. That this description also invokes those mechanics just tells me, as DM, what things I need to check before determining success, failure, or uncertainty. If "I cast fireball" cannot be part of an approach to harming an orc, then nothing really can be. This is because you've defined it away, not because it isn't done. Firstly, "basic" goal and approach as you've defined it is any action declaration where the GM can assume what is done and for what purpose. Does this actually sound like a useful tool for adjudication? It looks like a definition that's been so smeared as to make it apply to everything, which is a useful rhetorical method to strawman an argument into oblivion. Goal and approach is defined as the method of requiring the player to provide both the approach and the goal of an action as part of the declaration. It's intent is to remove assumption and provide the DM with sufficient information to fairly adjudicate the action. What you've done here is say that you're going to define goal and approach as any declaration where the DM can assume approach or goal and thereby arbitrate based on what the GM thinks the PC is doing rather than what the player thinks their PC is doing. You've redefined the argument into uselessness in opposition of the intent of the method. You haven't discovered a truth, you've hidden one. And you'd be wrong. Because goal and approach is always engaging the mechanics. The mechanics are the DM deciding how to arbitrate the outcome, but that's still a mechanic. What [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] is minimizing, or, to put it precisely, what players in [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER]'s game are minimizing, is the need to rely on a d20 to get a success. It's not like he hasn't be absolutely clear on this, over and over and over. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top