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
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How can you add more depth and complexity to skill checks?
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: 8091761" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Then, I don't understand why you went on this tangent, given the discussion up until here?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't find "both" to be coherent. Either you're following the fiction being driven by the PCs or you're not. It's not a good/bad thing, it's an approach thing. There's tons of great games that largely ignore the PCs (there's a current thread on it). In fact, I'd say that doing so is the predominant mode of play for D&D (just look to the published adventures, for example). But, doing "both" is like saying you both drive on the left side of the road and on the right side of the road, whenever the mode takes you -- it's not a coherent approach. Further, the idea that having a principled approach where you, as GM, are giving maximum control over the fiction to the players is somehow described as "dogmatic" is baffling. It shows an utter failure to understand the approach, how it works, and what it does. It's not dogmatic, it's making sure I, as GM, make the game about what the characters are doing, not whatever I think should be happening.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8091761, member: 16814"] Then, I don't understand why you went on this tangent, given the discussion up until here? I don't find "both" to be coherent. Either you're following the fiction being driven by the PCs or you're not. It's not a good/bad thing, it's an approach thing. There's tons of great games that largely ignore the PCs (there's a current thread on it). In fact, I'd say that doing so is the predominant mode of play for D&D (just look to the published adventures, for example). But, doing "both" is like saying you both drive on the left side of the road and on the right side of the road, whenever the mode takes you -- it's not a coherent approach. Further, the idea that having a principled approach where you, as GM, are giving maximum control over the fiction to the players is somehow described as "dogmatic" is baffling. It shows an utter failure to understand the approach, how it works, and what it does. It's not dogmatic, it's making sure I, as GM, make the game about what the characters are doing, not whatever I think should be happening. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How can you add more depth and complexity to skill checks?
Top