Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7759806" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I get what you're saying. I think when I said deciding what mechanic to apply, I meant more in cases where there is no specific rule, or if there are factors that mean the standard rule doesn't quite apply. I think your examples give a variety of how this can be handled. For me, in the context of 5E, I think the rules as they are are pretty applicable in most cases. I do think there are some gray areas in the application of some skills and what they can be used to accomplish, but I'm comfortable mitigating those. Plus, with 5E, everyone can attempt skill checks even if untrained, they just receive no proficiency bonus to such rolls. So that makes it easier. Some of the other commonly discussed problem areas....I tend to not find them to be problematic. I think that players will tend to lean into their characters' strengths, sure. So a socially savvy character will be played as strong in social situations, and a strong character will be played as focused on combat, and so on. I don't know if this means they will do so in a creative way, or if they will just lean on the options that are allowed to them. For combat, I think it makes sense in D&D. For social based encounters and actions, I prefer to not rely on set actions so much. I think it's better for the DM to review the situation and establish a ruling. I think there is enough structure in the game with opposed checks, Difficulty Classes, and so on that allows the DM to make reasonable rulings.And so in that sense, I agree with you that the best way to encourage players to come up with interesting actions is to adjudicate fairly. I feel that adjudicating fairly is more on the DM when there are less specific mechanics involved, no? 3E and it's versions were a double edged sword for me. I liked a lot of the streamlining and the correction of things that had never really made sense (descending ACs, a poorly defined skill system, wonky saving throws, etc.) but it went too far in codifying things to the point where there were rules for everything to the point where the DM wasn't really needed to interpret the rules and make rulings. I think it fostered a very antagonistic, rules-lawyerly game. So for me, because I primarily DM in 5e, I've found the environment to be less antagonistic, and that my players are trying more varied actions than before. They may not have as many "class powers" or whatever, but they tend to take more actions that are unique and suited to the actual moment. Yeah, I think that's what was meant if you go back and look at the comments, and what's implied by some of them. And I think it's pretty apparent when you look at the results, especially compared to previous editions.</blockquote>

Verification