Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8281542" data-attributes="member: 6779196">No action adjudication method you’ve seen in D&amp;D is based in the fiction...? I find that hard to believe. That’s like... one of the vote conceits of D&amp;D.Right, but one not based on anything concrete in the fiction. i.e. arbitrary.Yeah, I guess that makes sense, when you put it that way... Still seems like a bizarre way to do things. I don’t even do Skill Challenges (in the 4e sense) any more. They made sense in 4e, where the guideline was that players can ask to make checks and the DM is encouraged to almost always say yes. Less sense in 5e, with its pattern of play.That’s dodging the question. Why isn’t trying the same task again possible? What actual concrete thing in the fiction prevents it?Well, yes. The pattern described in the part of the rules labeled How To Play.That’s fine, you don’t have to introduce random encounters or tight time constraints if you don’t want to. There are plenty of other ways to insure actions have meaningful consequences. I just use random encounters as an example because they’re something just about every D&amp;D player is familiar with. Like the locked door or the conspicuous chandelier they’re an easy go-to example for illustrative purposes. Also I happen to like them. But if you don’t like them, that’s fine! Use other sources of pressure, other constraints, other consequences. Just don’t forbid your players from taking the actions they want to take when nothing in the fiction prevents it. (or do, if that’s what you and your players like. I’m not trying to tell you how to run your games, just trying to express why this particular aspect of how you run your games is a dealbreaker for me.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8281542, member: 6779196"] No action adjudication method you’ve seen in D&D is based in the fiction...? I find that hard to believe. That’s like... one of the vote conceits of D&D. Right, but one not based on anything concrete in the fiction. i.e. arbitrary. Yeah, I guess that makes sense, when you put it that way... Still seems like a bizarre way to do things. I don’t even do Skill Challenges (in the 4e sense) any more. They made sense in 4e, where the guideline was that players can ask to make checks and the DM is encouraged to almost always say yes. Less sense in 5e, with its pattern of play. That’s dodging the question. [I]Why[/I] isn’t trying the same task again possible? What actual concrete thing in the fiction prevents it? Well, yes. The pattern described in the part of the rules labeled How To Play. That’s fine, you don’t have to introduce random encounters or tight time constraints if you don’t want to. There are plenty of other ways to insure actions have meaningful consequences. I just use random encounters as an example because they’re something just about every D&D player is familiar with. Like the locked door or the conspicuous chandelier they’re an easy go-to example for illustrative purposes. Also [I]I[/I] happen to like them. But if you don’t like them, that’s fine! Use other sources of pressure, other constraints, other consequences. Just don’t forbid your players from taking the actions they want to take when nothing in the fiction prevents it. (or do, if that’s what you and your players like. I’m not trying to tell you how to run your games, just trying to express why this particular aspect of how you run your games is a dealbreaker for me.) [/QUOTE]

Verification