Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7761378" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This is where other aspects of action resolution methodology come into play.</p><p></p><p>For instance, in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" framework, the GM can just "say 'yes'" and allow Max's sword blow to hit and/or kill the opponent (depending exactly what the action declaration is to which "yes" is being said).</p><p></p><p>In 5e, the GM could simply rule that there is no uncertainty and hence Max hits and deals damage.</p><p></p><p>But in a system like 5e - in which the rules are not a simulation but rather a device for managing changes in the fiction (this is evidenced by the fact that the GM is obliged to invoke the rules only if s/he thinks the situation warrants it) - <em>once the rules are invoked</em> then player intent is not going to contribute to the outcomes except as mediated through those rules. So Max's player might <em>want </em>to be the one who strike first, but if the rules have been invoked then that outcome is precluded unless he gets the best initiative check.</p><p></p><p>You can't introduce a turn-by-turn resolution system, with rules for actions and reactions and bonus actions and the lilke, and yet not intend this sort of discussion to arise. They go together!</p><p></p><p>For more discussion on pretty much the same channel, drop into the currently active "Shield Master" thread!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7761378, member: 42582"] This is where other aspects of action resolution methodology come into play. For instance, in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" framework, the GM can just "say 'yes'" and allow Max's sword blow to hit and/or kill the opponent (depending exactly what the action declaration is to which "yes" is being said). In 5e, the GM could simply rule that there is no uncertainty and hence Max hits and deals damage. But in a system like 5e - in which the rules are not a simulation but rather a device for managing changes in the fiction (this is evidenced by the fact that the GM is obliged to invoke the rules only if s/he thinks the situation warrants it) - [I]once the rules are invoked[/I] then player intent is not going to contribute to the outcomes except as mediated through those rules. So Max's player might [I]want [/I]to be the one who strike first, but if the rules have been invoked then that outcome is precluded unless he gets the best initiative check. You can't introduce a turn-by-turn resolution system, with rules for actions and reactions and bonus actions and the lilke, and yet not intend this sort of discussion to arise. They go together! For more discussion on pretty much the same channel, drop into the currently active "Shield Master" thread! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
Top