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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7809802" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>See, in the same way that some posters want to emphasise 5e as a distinctive game in its own right, I want to say the same about 4e.</p><p></p><p>4e says the following about making (non-attack) checks:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">PHB p 178:</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstnaces call for one.</p><p></p><p>In the context of a skill challenge it's different, in so far as there is a mechanically-generated expectation that checks will be made, but even then it's still "fiction first":</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">DMG pp 74-75:</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Sometimes a player tells you, "I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us in his best interest." That's great - the player has told you what she's doing and what skill she's using to do it. Other times, a player will say, "I want to make a Diplomacy check." In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">it's particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, "Can I use Diplomacy?" you should ask what exactly the character might be doing . . .</p><p></p><p>There's nothing here that suggests that <em>the DM narrates the characters’ actions based on the results of those checks.</em></p><p></p><p>This depends very much on the game. For instance, Burning Wheel is a game that can be played entirely using "goal and approach" (in the BW rulebook it is called <em>intent and task</em>) and all mechanics are based on ficitonal positioning. It's quite different in this respect from PbtA games. BW also has discrete mechanical subsystems - the most important ones are for social conflict, skirmishing, melee and pursuit - that are not resolved through straightforward intent and task. The rulebooks calls out this feature of these subsystems, and also notes that they are optional but recommended.</p><p></p><p>BW also has some systems that are intermediate. Prayers of the faithful, for instance, are generally confined in intent to a list of options (which also determine the difficulty). But they still have a <em>task </em>requirement - the player must compose and recite a prayer, and the table must be satisfied that this task is adequate to the intent. This task requirement has two purposes: (1) it determine that number of syllables spoken in the prayer, which feeds into certain aspects of action resolution in the discrete resolution subsytems; and (2) it helps establish and reinforce colour in the context of play. 5e <em>could </em>have a rule like this for barbarian rage, or action surge; but it doesn't.</p><p></p><p>Prince Valiant is a RPG system that uses intent and task for all resolution, with difficulties set either by reference to the objective in-fiction situation, or determined via opposed checks. Fictional positioning generates modifiers (bonus dice or reduced dice), and includes the full range of factors including emotions and other "internal" as well as external considerations.</p><p></p><p>I think that this is more-or-less what [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] was saying, and that I was agreeing with. Raging is an action declaration - it is declared by the player for his/her PC, it has a cost in the action economy, etc - but not one that is adjudicated via "goal and approach". </p><p></p><p>I'm sure that it is just accepted at most tables. The fact that the contrast is highly salient eg for [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] doesn't mean that it's salient for everyone.</p><p></p><p>I'll add that, for me, the fact that the GM still has to authorise it in the game doesn't seem to be very much like the role of the GM in adjudicating "goal and approach". The latter is all about adjudicating the fiction, working with the player to establish the PC's fictional positioning, thinking about consequences etc. This is a very fundamental GM skill which is quite different (I think) from many other sorts of gameplay and is probably the area where new GMs often need to do the most amount of development.</p><p></p><p>Whereas deciding whether or not something stops the PC raging (eg for whatever reason they're short of action economy, or maybe the GM knows there is a "zone of ca;lm" operating in the area, or whatever) is much closer to the ordinary process of following and applying rules in a game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7809802, member: 42582"] See, in the same way that some posters want to emphasise 5e as a distinctive game in its own right, I want to say the same about 4e. 4e says the following about making (non-attack) checks: [indent]PHB p 178: The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstnaces call for one.[/indent] In the context of a skill challenge it's different, in so far as there is a mechanically-generated expectation that checks will be made, but even then it's still "fiction first": [indent]DMG pp 74-75: Sometimes a player tells you, "I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us in his best interest." That's great - the player has told you what she's doing and what skill she's using to do it. Other times, a player will say, "I want to make a Diplomacy check." In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. . . . it's particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, "Can I use Diplomacy?" you should ask what exactly the character might be doing . . .[/indent] There's nothing here that suggests that [I]the DM narrates the characters’ actions based on the results of those checks.[/I] This depends very much on the game. For instance, Burning Wheel is a game that can be played entirely using "goal and approach" (in the BW rulebook it is called [I]intent and task[/I]) and all mechanics are based on ficitonal positioning. It's quite different in this respect from PbtA games. BW also has discrete mechanical subsystems - the most important ones are for social conflict, skirmishing, melee and pursuit - that are not resolved through straightforward intent and task. The rulebooks calls out this feature of these subsystems, and also notes that they are optional but recommended. BW also has some systems that are intermediate. Prayers of the faithful, for instance, are generally confined in intent to a list of options (which also determine the difficulty). But they still have a [I]task [/I]requirement - the player must compose and recite a prayer, and the table must be satisfied that this task is adequate to the intent. This task requirement has two purposes: (1) it determine that number of syllables spoken in the prayer, which feeds into certain aspects of action resolution in the discrete resolution subsytems; and (2) it helps establish and reinforce colour in the context of play. 5e [I]could [/I]have a rule like this for barbarian rage, or action surge; but it doesn't. Prince Valiant is a RPG system that uses intent and task for all resolution, with difficulties set either by reference to the objective in-fiction situation, or determined via opposed checks. Fictional positioning generates modifiers (bonus dice or reduced dice), and includes the full range of factors including emotions and other "internal" as well as external considerations. I think that this is more-or-less what [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] was saying, and that I was agreeing with. Raging is an action declaration - it is declared by the player for his/her PC, it has a cost in the action economy, etc - but not one that is adjudicated via "goal and approach". I'm sure that it is just accepted at most tables. The fact that the contrast is highly salient eg for [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] doesn't mean that it's salient for everyone. I'll add that, for me, the fact that the GM still has to authorise it in the game doesn't seem to be very much like the role of the GM in adjudicating "goal and approach". The latter is all about adjudicating the fiction, working with the player to establish the PC's fictional positioning, thinking about consequences etc. This is a very fundamental GM skill which is quite different (I think) from many other sorts of gameplay and is probably the area where new GMs often need to do the most amount of development. Whereas deciding whether or not something stops the PC raging (eg for whatever reason they're short of action economy, or maybe the GM knows there is a "zone of ca;lm" operating in the area, or whatever) is much closer to the ordinary process of following and applying rules in a game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top