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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]
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="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5950626" data-attributes="member: 10479"><p>Naw, that explanation suggests equivalency in the methods. I understand why a player might want to have fewer variable factors but that's why players are encouraged to avoid them if they can. This is one of those situations that feels too much like bubblewrapping the corners.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There are multiple points at which something requires resolution, and their could even be more depending on how complicated the narration becomes. One is a roll against a static condition, the slippery floor slide, and the other is an opposed roll against an active opponent, grabbing someone's leg that doesn't want to be grabbed. By claiming it is a penalty, you suggest there is an adversarial relationship between player and DM, which isn't the case. Arguing at the table that the DM is trying to penalize a player would certainly bring such a game to a crawl. It's not personal, it is just an adjudication of the situation based on the factors presented and utilizing only two types, one each, of standard resolution mechanic. Adding in a plus ten for whatever reason seems like extra math for its own sake. Why not just set the DC ten lower and do a straight roll? Do Spinal Tap's amps really need to go up to eleven? </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Straight roll versus DC and the opposed check are two of the simplest. You could add more complicated resolution mechanics to the mix but I've yet to see a convincing argument. Adjudication isn't "fiat" in any capricious sense, which often gets implied when that word is used. What I've actually demonstrated is a comparison between early D&D and later-era D&D, and the former is considerably faster. You do realize that this design discussion that WotC and the fans are having is about that very thing? It has been framed as simple versus complex for whatever reason. Of course, that isn't really a true assessment as a narrative and swiftly adjudicated so-called simple system can be quite complex in its narration. What you accidentally point out in your comparison is the misrepresentation that one way is not complex but rather fraught with reliance on a DM who, heaven forbid, might suggest resolutions that cannot be foreseen and thus might be meant to harm someone character. This, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that good DMs, which is to say most DMs, strive for consistency. Gaming with the same DM for any length of time will be marked by even faster play than the system, which is fast to begin with, portends.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That implies that it is proven in 4E and I'd like to hear how you believe that to be the case.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mark CMG, post: 5950626, member: 10479"] Naw, that explanation suggests equivalency in the methods. I understand why a player might want to have fewer variable factors but that's why players are encouraged to avoid them if they can. This is one of those situations that feels too much like bubblewrapping the corners. There are multiple points at which something requires resolution, and their could even be more depending on how complicated the narration becomes. One is a roll against a static condition, the slippery floor slide, and the other is an opposed roll against an active opponent, grabbing someone's leg that doesn't want to be grabbed. By claiming it is a penalty, you suggest there is an adversarial relationship between player and DM, which isn't the case. Arguing at the table that the DM is trying to penalize a player would certainly bring such a game to a crawl. It's not personal, it is just an adjudication of the situation based on the factors presented and utilizing only two types, one each, of standard resolution mechanic. Adding in a plus ten for whatever reason seems like extra math for its own sake. Why not just set the DC ten lower and do a straight roll? Do Spinal Tap's amps really need to go up to eleven? Straight roll versus DC and the opposed check are two of the simplest. You could add more complicated resolution mechanics to the mix but I've yet to see a convincing argument. Adjudication isn't "fiat" in any capricious sense, which often gets implied when that word is used. What I've actually demonstrated is a comparison between early D&D and later-era D&D, and the former is considerably faster. You do realize that this design discussion that WotC and the fans are having is about that very thing? It has been framed as simple versus complex for whatever reason. Of course, that isn't really a true assessment as a narrative and swiftly adjudicated so-called simple system can be quite complex in its narration. What you accidentally point out in your comparison is the misrepresentation that one way is not complex but rather fraught with reliance on a DM who, heaven forbid, might suggest resolutions that cannot be foreseen and thus might be meant to harm someone character. This, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that good DMs, which is to say most DMs, strive for consistency. Gaming with the same DM for any length of time will be marked by even faster play than the system, which is fast to begin with, portends. That implies that it is proven in 4E and I'd like to hear how you believe that to be the case. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]
Top