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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players Self-Assigning Rolls
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: 7301021" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Nope, I'm responding to your addition of a condition (jumping above the cover that assumedly is hiding the character from being seen, a situation that the character might want to otherwise avoid?) and saying that that addition to the situation changes the adjudication. The character may define his goal as reaching the moon and his approach as jumping, but if there are other consequences to jumping, and the outcome of those consequences are uncertain, then, yes, I'm going to ask for a roll because now a failure on the roll (in this case defined as jumping too high) will have a consequence. So, since you chose to add a new element, the outcome of the approach is now uncertain and has a consequence, even if the goal is an auto-fail.</p><p></p><p>You see, being a person that doesn't execute a ridiculous set of code against all situations, I can evaluate a goal and approach declaration based on the totality of the circumstances involved. In this case, the character fails to achieve his goal -- automatically without regard to the outcome of the roll -- but there may be a consequence to the character being too good at jumping.</p><p></p><p>Ruling a goal as automatically unobtainable doesn't mean the approach doesn't have consequences or isn't uncertain.</p><p></p><p>To give a different example that illustrates this point, if there's a mimic in the middle of a room pretending to be a chest, and a player declares his character goes over to the chest and opens it, well, there's going to be an automatic failure of his goal -- no matter what, that mimic doesn't open -- but the WIS (perception) check I ask for to resolve that goal and approach isn't addressing the goal, that failed, but instead whether or not the character notices it's not a chest before touching it and starting the encounter adhered to the mimic.</p><p></p><p>Please stop assuming that everyone else but you is a robot unable to adapt to anything. Further, stop adding new things to a situation discussed and then insist that the original answers everyone gave before that addition still hold. They may, they may not, but if you add things you should give the benefit of asking how the new situation would be handled instead of assuming we'd all still do it exactly the same way. Given you offer yourself that ability, you should consider sharing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's quite simple: you insist that my players will state obviously impossible things and that I will then adjudicate those obviously impossible things like a robot. Further, you insist that when you add or change the scenario, both my players and I will be unable to change, instead remaining exactly the same. If you continue to insist that the jumping to the moon example is anything other than you inserting what you what to make the answer given irrational and then insisting it's us asking to change the situation, then, yes, I stand by my statement that you're assuming we're all idiots and that we must play with idiots because no one would actually do that at my table, nor would any of us stand for it.</p><p></p><p>The only way you can continue to so badly misconstrue the responses you've been getting is if you're intentionally painting everyone on my 'side' (another ridiculous claim that by using 'side' you aren't painting with a broad brush) as morons. Or robots. Either way, persons unable to be rational.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, you've been repeatedly told that they don't happen the way you insist they do, so, yes, it's out of line to keep insisting they happen that way despite being corrected, often and, shockingly, rather politely.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Is it? You keep painting with a broad brush and not addressing your remarks to specific posters. In fact, you often reference things said by multiple posters in your responses in defending your assertions that we use an inflexible 'right words' approach to gameplay. You've specifically referred to things I've said both in the post I quoted and in other posts you've made since then. How, exactly, should I not feel included in your remarks when you're doing such a good job of including me?</p><p></p><p>I'm the one that made the remarks about climbing the tree, and, in that context, it was to help my players achieve their end goal (as in why they wanted to be up the tree to begin with), not in the context of adjudicating the specific act of climbing the tree. I have some players that get grand ideas of cinematic actions, like climbing a tree and then jumping down on top of a mounted villain and knocking them to the ground. In that case, I'd like to know that whole plan instead of getting it piecemeal as separate action resolutions so I can work with it as much as possible. I don't want the player to spend a few actions climbing up a tree only to find out that what they thought the situation was isn't what I think it is. So, I said that not because I need that extra information to adjudicate the climbing of the tree, which is what you implied by your reference, but as a more general tool that I use to make the most of my games with my players.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Do you know why so many posters are leveling accusations of less than honest engagement on your part? This is why. That question is insulting. Further, it has nothing to do with anything at all except your attempt to deflect. However, I'll extend you the courtesy of assuming you're just having an off moment or have some holes in your interpersonal interaction skillset and say, no, I post as myself alone, and own up to every post I've made.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7301021, member: 16814"] Nope, I'm responding to your addition of a condition (jumping above the cover that assumedly is hiding the character from being seen, a situation that the character might want to otherwise avoid?) and saying that that addition to the situation changes the adjudication. The character may define his goal as reaching the moon and his approach as jumping, but if there are other consequences to jumping, and the outcome of those consequences are uncertain, then, yes, I'm going to ask for a roll because now a failure on the roll (in this case defined as jumping too high) will have a consequence. So, since you chose to add a new element, the outcome of the approach is now uncertain and has a consequence, even if the goal is an auto-fail. You see, being a person that doesn't execute a ridiculous set of code against all situations, I can evaluate a goal and approach declaration based on the totality of the circumstances involved. In this case, the character fails to achieve his goal -- automatically without regard to the outcome of the roll -- but there may be a consequence to the character being too good at jumping. Ruling a goal as automatically unobtainable doesn't mean the approach doesn't have consequences or isn't uncertain. To give a different example that illustrates this point, if there's a mimic in the middle of a room pretending to be a chest, and a player declares his character goes over to the chest and opens it, well, there's going to be an automatic failure of his goal -- no matter what, that mimic doesn't open -- but the WIS (perception) check I ask for to resolve that goal and approach isn't addressing the goal, that failed, but instead whether or not the character notices it's not a chest before touching it and starting the encounter adhered to the mimic. Please stop assuming that everyone else but you is a robot unable to adapt to anything. Further, stop adding new things to a situation discussed and then insist that the original answers everyone gave before that addition still hold. They may, they may not, but if you add things you should give the benefit of asking how the new situation would be handled instead of assuming we'd all still do it exactly the same way. Given you offer yourself that ability, you should consider sharing. It's quite simple: you insist that my players will state obviously impossible things and that I will then adjudicate those obviously impossible things like a robot. Further, you insist that when you add or change the scenario, both my players and I will be unable to change, instead remaining exactly the same. If you continue to insist that the jumping to the moon example is anything other than you inserting what you what to make the answer given irrational and then insisting it's us asking to change the situation, then, yes, I stand by my statement that you're assuming we're all idiots and that we must play with idiots because no one would actually do that at my table, nor would any of us stand for it. The only way you can continue to so badly misconstrue the responses you've been getting is if you're intentionally painting everyone on my 'side' (another ridiculous claim that by using 'side' you aren't painting with a broad brush) as morons. Or robots. Either way, persons unable to be rational. Well, you've been repeatedly told that they don't happen the way you insist they do, so, yes, it's out of line to keep insisting they happen that way despite being corrected, often and, shockingly, rather politely. Is it? You keep painting with a broad brush and not addressing your remarks to specific posters. In fact, you often reference things said by multiple posters in your responses in defending your assertions that we use an inflexible 'right words' approach to gameplay. You've specifically referred to things I've said both in the post I quoted and in other posts you've made since then. How, exactly, should I not feel included in your remarks when you're doing such a good job of including me? I'm the one that made the remarks about climbing the tree, and, in that context, it was to help my players achieve their end goal (as in why they wanted to be up the tree to begin with), not in the context of adjudicating the specific act of climbing the tree. I have some players that get grand ideas of cinematic actions, like climbing a tree and then jumping down on top of a mounted villain and knocking them to the ground. In that case, I'd like to know that whole plan instead of getting it piecemeal as separate action resolutions so I can work with it as much as possible. I don't want the player to spend a few actions climbing up a tree only to find out that what they thought the situation was isn't what I think it is. So, I said that not because I need that extra information to adjudicate the climbing of the tree, which is what you implied by your reference, but as a more general tool that I use to make the most of my games with my players. Do you know why so many posters are leveling accusations of less than honest engagement on your part? This is why. That question is insulting. Further, it has nothing to do with anything at all except your attempt to deflect. However, I'll extend you the courtesy of assuming you're just having an off moment or have some holes in your interpersonal interaction skillset and say, no, I post as myself alone, and own up to every post I've made. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players Self-Assigning Rolls
Top