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
Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?
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="iserith" data-source="post: 7794416" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>An approach to a goal that doesn't actually tell anyone anything or doesn't tell the DM necessary information isn't a fault of this method. It's the fault of the player for not being sufficiently clear as to what he or she wants to do and how. "I grapple the orc so that it can't run aggressively toward the wizard." That's a goal (prevent orc from moving toward wizard) and approach (grappling). "Okay, which orc? There's eight of them." That's on the player, not on the method.</p><p></p><p>Get asked for clarification once and this issue is typically resolved. It's a skill like any other. You get better at it by doing it instead of doing that other thing likely you've been trained to do which is ask to make ability checks.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I addressed this recently in another thread on a similar topic and I'll note that an ability check having a meaningful consequence for failure is not "my" idea - it's in the rules, DMG p. 237. I didn't just make it up. If there is no meaningful consequence for failure in the situation, you are correct in that there will be no ability check. Which is great, especially if you yourself have taken steps to remove that chance of failure! You're probably going to get the information you seek, provided that (per the rules) what you described isn't impossible. That's what you want, right? It would suck if the d20 screwed you out of that information or verification in my view.</p><p></p><p>But at the same time, the meaningful consequence for failure is all relative. What is "meaningful?" It could be a number of things in the fictional context. Not being able to recall that this devil that is tearing its way past the fighter to get to your wizard is immune to fire and poison is going to suck when you're playing Pyranor the Toxic, the wizard who specializes in fire and poison. That's a wasted turn staring you in the face, potentially. Now that's a pretty meaningful consequence in my view. So if you don't do something that makes the attempt to recall that devils are immune to fire and poison trivially easy, you might be next after that devil has snapped your party's fighter in half and chucked his remains into the nearby acid pool.</p><p></p><p>Generally speaking, if I ask for an ability check to recall lore, I'm going to do something like progress combined with a setback if you fail the check as well: You get some information, just not what you were seeking. Then it's on you to make what you did end up recalling useful.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7794416, member: 97077"] An approach to a goal that doesn't actually tell anyone anything or doesn't tell the DM necessary information isn't a fault of this method. It's the fault of the player for not being sufficiently clear as to what he or she wants to do and how. "I grapple the orc so that it can't run aggressively toward the wizard." That's a goal (prevent orc from moving toward wizard) and approach (grappling). "Okay, which orc? There's eight of them." That's on the player, not on the method. Get asked for clarification once and this issue is typically resolved. It's a skill like any other. You get better at it by doing it instead of doing that other thing likely you've been trained to do which is ask to make ability checks. I addressed this recently in another thread on a similar topic and I'll note that an ability check having a meaningful consequence for failure is not "my" idea - it's in the rules, DMG p. 237. I didn't just make it up. If there is no meaningful consequence for failure in the situation, you are correct in that there will be no ability check. Which is great, especially if you yourself have taken steps to remove that chance of failure! You're probably going to get the information you seek, provided that (per the rules) what you described isn't impossible. That's what you want, right? It would suck if the d20 screwed you out of that information or verification in my view. But at the same time, the meaningful consequence for failure is all relative. What is "meaningful?" It could be a number of things in the fictional context. Not being able to recall that this devil that is tearing its way past the fighter to get to your wizard is immune to fire and poison is going to suck when you're playing Pyranor the Toxic, the wizard who specializes in fire and poison. That's a wasted turn staring you in the face, potentially. Now that's a pretty meaningful consequence in my view. So if you don't do something that makes the attempt to recall that devils are immune to fire and poison trivially easy, you might be next after that devil has snapped your party's fighter in half and chucked his remains into the nearby acid pool. Generally speaking, if I ask for an ability check to recall lore, I'm going to do something like progress combined with a setback if you fail the check as well: You get some information, just not what you were seeking. Then it's on you to make what you did end up recalling useful. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?
Top