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
Putting The Awe Back In Magic
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="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 7998304" data-attributes="member: 6993955"><p>Here's hawkeye's original post, where he refers both his group's decision add the kind of effect and consequences we were discussing, and also his preference that the mechanics support that kind of play. </p><p></p><p>My use of the word <em>risk </em>and <em>uneven</em> both index this state wherein the DM has to decide, in each and every instance, how and to what extent to apply additional X.</p><p></p><p>I think you're misunderstanding what I'm getting at. Obviously DMs can adjudicate consequences and make snap judgments about what is and is not possible. That is indeed part-and-parcel of RPG play. I'd like to dig down to what I meant though, so let's pick an example, let's look at adding possible consequences and effects to spells, not just occasionally, but consistently. I can obviously adjudicate the fireball and pillar case from above. No problem. That's probably true of most single case examples I could think of. However, players being the naturally creative and devious beings they are, this would quite naturally turn into a very regular occurrence.</p><p></p><p>Let's assume I was willing to lift that somewhat enormous cognitive load. I'm now making a<strong> lot</strong> of case-by-case judgement calls, probably multiple times per encounter (on top of all the micro-decision making the DM job normally entails). This is where <em>risk</em> and <em>uneven</em> come back into our story. The mechanics of D&D support essentially none of this in any direct way. When the volume of individual judgments go up there is an increased risk of those calls not being even from instance to instance over time. There are a lot of different kinds of spells, and I'd have to have a pretty clear recollection of how I'd ruled before if I wanted to maintain consistency. The volume suggests that would be very difficult, and a reasonable result of that would be an uneven set of adjudications. Players are going to notice stuff like that, and it's a bad look, and it's no one in particular's fault. It would probably even out over time, as the players and I reached some sort of detente over the difference between possible and likely in their attempts to find new uses for spells, but that could be a long process.</p><p></p><p>I'd rather layer on some soft touch mechanics beforehand designed cover a lot of the cases the table wants to consider, and then just lean on those for more or even most of the resolution.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fenris-77, post: 7998304, member: 6993955"] Here's hawkeye's original post, where he refers both his group's decision add the kind of effect and consequences we were discussing, and also his preference that the mechanics support that kind of play. My use of the word [I]risk [/I]and [I]uneven[/I] both index this state wherein the DM has to decide, in each and every instance, how and to what extent to apply additional X. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm getting at. Obviously DMs can adjudicate consequences and make snap judgments about what is and is not possible. That is indeed part-and-parcel of RPG play. I'd like to dig down to what I meant though, so let's pick an example, let's look at adding possible consequences and effects to spells, not just occasionally, but consistently. I can obviously adjudicate the fireball and pillar case from above. No problem. That's probably true of most single case examples I could think of. However, players being the naturally creative and devious beings they are, this would quite naturally turn into a very regular occurrence. Let's assume I was willing to lift that somewhat enormous cognitive load. I'm now making a[B] lot[/B] of case-by-case judgement calls, probably multiple times per encounter (on top of all the micro-decision making the DM job normally entails). This is where [I]risk[/I] and [I]uneven[/I] come back into our story. The mechanics of D&D support essentially none of this in any direct way. When the volume of individual judgments go up there is an increased risk of those calls not being even from instance to instance over time. There are a lot of different kinds of spells, and I'd have to have a pretty clear recollection of how I'd ruled before if I wanted to maintain consistency. The volume suggests that would be very difficult, and a reasonable result of that would be an uneven set of adjudications. Players are going to notice stuff like that, and it's a bad look, and it's no one in particular's fault. It would probably even out over time, as the players and I reached some sort of detente over the difference between possible and likely in their attempts to find new uses for spells, but that could be a long process. I'd rather layer on some soft touch mechanics beforehand designed cover a lot of the cases the table wants to consider, and then just lean on those for more or even most of the resolution. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Putting The Awe Back In Magic
Top