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
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7634945" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Let me clarify, I find saving throws against charm to be "not much of a challenge" because they're boring and are heavy with force. The GM decides to have an NPC with charm, and the GM decides when to use it an on whom, and then the player gets one roll to see if they can prevent this GM chain from continuing to putting limits on their character. In other words, the only thing the player stakes is playing in the game at all.</p><p></p><p>As such, it's technically a challenge, but it's a weak example of a good challenge and full of the things I'm not happy about. That said, I did use a dominate monster on a player tonight, and I felt bad about it. But, they had set some stakes in the character development that the character has enmity with creatures that do this, and the player had not taken action against repeated sightings and foreshadowings of such creatures making an appearance, and, then, the player not only failed his save, but his party, who detected he was whammied, didn't follow up on it (it's an odd dynamic, but full of playing their characters to the hilt). Even so, the result was to take a challenge that was to be for the party and limit it to the player, but that was my choice at that point, not the player's. So, yeah, when I play D&D I'll use these mechanics, but I don't like them much.</p><p></p><p>I treat the term challenge as referring to a situation with at least two clear mutually exclusive outcomes, and the possibility of not attaining the desired one if it is chosen for the attempt.</p><p></p><p>Saving throws technically meet this some of the time... </p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Undesired: hit by the spell for full damage</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Desired: damage reduced </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">highly desired: damage negated</li> </ul><p>Given the D&D premise that saves may always be intentionally failed...</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Undesired is, in this case, the default - do nothing, and take the damage</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Desired is a passed save. Chance of failure. Choosing it is the usual choice, because the default is also the undesired effect.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Highly desired is only possible if one uses a reaction ability. Not every character has such, but let's assume the character does. The challenge to the player is "do I use my 1 reaction?" The answer has many conditionals to consider, but most important is, "will I need to react to someone else?" coupled with, "will I lose my character if I don't?" The challenge to the character is the dive to cover or whatnot - resolved by the abstraction of the saving throw.</li> </ul></blockquote><p></p><p>A reasonable definition, but unless there's a chance to fail to get what you want, it's just a choice, even if the options are mutually exclusive. The player maintains full control -- nothing is risked. Again, situations that come up where there are mutually exclusive options are usually put there by the GM, not the players. So, this is really just front loading the GM making changes to the PC characterization. If the choice really is something like maintain your chastity or get Excalibur, this is a thinly-veiled use of GM force to cause a situation where the player has to make a hard choice -- and change their characterization in doing so. The GM may not pick which avenue is selected, but he drew the map. And, if the GM foreshadows that one path has worse consequences, then the force gets even stronger.</p><p></p><p>So, I like my definition of a challenge to be where the player has something at stake and can fail to achieve it.</p><p></p><p>Oddly, this pairs okay with my usual positions re: how to run D&D. The core play loop alongside the Middle Path for dice use leads to never asking for a roll unless there's a clear approach, clear goal, and a chance and consequence for failure. Maybe it's not so odd. If I know that many in this thread that are arguing against my position here also argue against that one. Even though I can give page numbers for the rule references. But, this method says that it's not worth even going to mechanics unless there's a chance and consequence for failure -- that, unless it's a challenge as I've defined it, don't roll, just narrate.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7634945, member: 16814"] Let me clarify, I find saving throws against charm to be "not much of a challenge" because they're boring and are heavy with force. The GM decides to have an NPC with charm, and the GM decides when to use it an on whom, and then the player gets one roll to see if they can prevent this GM chain from continuing to putting limits on their character. In other words, the only thing the player stakes is playing in the game at all. As such, it's technically a challenge, but it's a weak example of a good challenge and full of the things I'm not happy about. That said, I did use a dominate monster on a player tonight, and I felt bad about it. But, they had set some stakes in the character development that the character has enmity with creatures that do this, and the player had not taken action against repeated sightings and foreshadowings of such creatures making an appearance, and, then, the player not only failed his save, but his party, who detected he was whammied, didn't follow up on it (it's an odd dynamic, but full of playing their characters to the hilt). Even so, the result was to take a challenge that was to be for the party and limit it to the player, but that was my choice at that point, not the player's. So, yeah, when I play D&D I'll use these mechanics, but I don't like them much. I treat the term challenge as referring to a situation with at least two clear mutually exclusive outcomes, and the possibility of not attaining the desired one if it is chosen for the attempt. Saving throws technically meet this some of the time... [list][*]Undesired: hit by the spell for full damage [*]Desired: damage reduced [*]highly desired: damage negated[/list] Given the D&D premise that saves may always be intentionally failed... [list][*]Undesired is, in this case, the default - do nothing, and take the damage [*]Desired is a passed save. Chance of failure. Choosing it is the usual choice, because the default is also the undesired effect. [*]Highly desired is only possible if one uses a reaction ability. Not every character has such, but let's assume the character does. The challenge to the player is "do I use my 1 reaction?" The answer has many conditionals to consider, but most important is, "will I need to react to someone else?" coupled with, "will I lose my character if I don't?" The challenge to the character is the dive to cover or whatnot - resolved by the abstraction of the saving throw.[/list][/quote] A reasonable definition, but unless there's a chance to fail to get what you want, it's just a choice, even if the options are mutually exclusive. The player maintains full control -- nothing is risked. Again, situations that come up where there are mutually exclusive options are usually put there by the GM, not the players. So, this is really just front loading the GM making changes to the PC characterization. If the choice really is something like maintain your chastity or get Excalibur, this is a thinly-veiled use of GM force to cause a situation where the player has to make a hard choice -- and change their characterization in doing so. The GM may not pick which avenue is selected, but he drew the map. And, if the GM foreshadows that one path has worse consequences, then the force gets even stronger. So, I like my definition of a challenge to be where the player has something at stake and can fail to achieve it. Oddly, this pairs okay with my usual positions re: how to run D&D. The core play loop alongside the Middle Path for dice use leads to never asking for a roll unless there's a clear approach, clear goal, and a chance and consequence for failure. Maybe it's not so odd. If I know that many in this thread that are arguing against my position here also argue against that one. Even though I can give page numbers for the rule references. But, this method says that it's not worth even going to mechanics unless there's a chance and consequence for failure -- that, unless it's a challenge as I've defined it, don't roll, just narrate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top