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!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7592453" data-attributes="member: 97077">^ This. Different games, different rules, different approaches that work with those rules.I'll quote the D&D 5e DMG (emphasis mine):"When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores... only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure." It then goes on add another prerequisite, that being, if it has an uncertain outcome (somewhere between trivially easy and impossible). This last bit is reinforced by the D&D 5e PHB (emphasis mine):"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."Taking these elements plus the rest of the rules into account (such as divorcing a fictional task from a "skill check") and I think the conclusion is as you say above. pemerton's Approach 1 is a better fit for D&D 5e. I don't particularly agree with the whole "engineering" bit (as I am by far no engineer), but the causal bit in the context of a fantasy world is a reasonable way of thinking about it in my view.Having said that, I greatly prefer Approach 2! I argued for a more 4e-esque game than D&D 5e eventually became, and I love Dungeon world and was one of the original playtesters for that game. I lost that argument, however, and what we have is what we have. So my preferences get set aside to play in a manner that most suits the rules set as I see it. And what do ya know, we still have fun games. Different games, different rules, different approaches that work with those rules. It seems like madness to me to play every game the same way.</blockquote>

Verification