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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7003437" data-attributes="member: 6696971">What I tried to outline in my initial post is something akin to this while also conveying that the developers clearly meant for the action resolution mechanics of the Ability Check system to (a) be framed objectively around phenomena grounded in the setting and (b) bear a consistently applied and fairly recognizable (and learnable) resemblance to earth physics (the kind of system that  [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] has historically advocated for in D&D and more recently  [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] ).They evidence for this is overwhelming.1)  The developers talked about and constantly reiterated (a) during the development and playtest phase.  2)  Much of 5e's design is pushback against 4e.  With respect to noncombat resolution, this includes pushback against (i) abstract conflict resolution, (b) subjective system machinery/procedures (DCs and "going straight to the action" - the encounter/conflict-charged scene as the exclusive locus of play) and antagonism (obstacles, NPCS) centered around the PCs current level and the genre conceits of that tier of play.  Bounded accuracy and the objective system machinery and antagonism anchored in the setting (rather than being PC-centric) is the manifestation of this pushback.3)  The "natural language" interpretation (as I tried to outline in my lead post) of the rules text connotes only this.  It doesn't connote a genre logic interpretation.4)  Even if we want to to attempt to interpret the text as promoting genre logic in the procedures of the Ability Check system ("the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"), we need only look at 5e's baseline assumption of Heroic Fantasy (DMG 38) for its genre conceits.  Like many components of the text, the passage isn't terribly revealing, but where it is, it is very much so:a)  Heroes come from ordinary backgrounds.  b)  The genre is that of the Forgotten Realms novels.   This is sharply contrasted with the Mythic and Wuxia "Flavors of Fantasy" depicted later.  The heritage/backgrounds and capabilities of heroes in those two genres break sharply with the vanilla "Heroic Fantasy" tropes.  Furthermore, basic "Toril physics" are exactly that of our earth physics (while disregarding my usual complaints of incoherency between certain monsters and martial heroes...you know them well at this point).  Consequently, mundane folks and martial heroes are bound by that of our own system.  I tried my best to be charitable in my reading of the tea leaves, but I certainly agree that transparency in "uncertainty handling" is definitely not a strong spot (for my purposes) for 5e.  Again though, I'm certain  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] (among others) will champion this as a feature, not a bug.  5e is intentional about its vagaries.  It is a dead sprint away from "Skip the gate guards and get to the fun!"  You will not find the clarity and tightness of play procedures (and resolution mechanics integrated with feedback systems) that you will find in Powered By the Apocalypse, Cortex+, BW/Torchbearer systems.  This is by design!Could very well be.  Despite 4e's clarity, coherency, and transparency, it still bore some competing editorial voices and text clumsiness here and there.Others in this thread feel that the "natural language" inclusion of the descriptor "reasonable" (which appears to connote subjectivity in handling) in the same area where the "natural language", objective qualification of tasks as "easy", "nearly impossible" (etc) isn't a clumsy introduction of opacity (or outright incoherency).  Its just...natural?If I have to have an opinion on it, I guess I would just say it doesn't make things more clear to me!Again, I agree.  And I certainly don't think the GMs I mentioned above would use it.  Nonetheless, if I were creating a (roughly because it integrates with the very non-granular improvised action machinery of 5e) codified module for consistent (within CR) handling of improvised actions that produced dynamic play and interesting decision-points for players, that is how I would do it:1)  Ability check.  Success equals no fallout and proceed to 2.  Failure equals some sort of consequence that introduces one or two thematic, tactically compelling opening to a PC (or PCs) that often (but not always) comes with some sort of risk or trade-off.2)  Use the improvised Action tables of the tier for attack or saving throw.3)  Use the Improvised Action tables of the tier for the damage expression and step it back for AoE and step it back for a simple rider.Done.</blockquote>

Verification