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
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8005014" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>My point is that the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for.</p><p></p><p>I particularly don't see how <em>the possibility of a meaningful consequence for failure</em> - which there clearly was in this case - can be a basis for deciding that an action fails without calling for a check.</p><p></p><p>And I don't see that it is good GMing to decide that a task is impossible when there is no reason in genre or logic for it to be so, and when - as appeared to happen in this case - it will create a less-than-satsifactory experience to so decide.</p><p></p><p>I thought the topic of this thread is - roughly, and perhaps among other things - what makes for good or bad GMing. As [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] postred upthread, the OP has a hint at least that the GM wasn't fully satisfied with how things played out.</p><p></p><p>Nothing I've read in the Basic PDF suggests that the GM should make decisions in an unpricpled way. What are the principles? Well in the PDF p 2 says the following:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.</p><p></p><p>For me, key words are <em>together </em>and <em>everyone</em>. The GM should be making decisions about when to allow a possibility of success having regard to the group nature of the roleplaying adventure. It doesn't seem consistent with those principles, to me at least, for a nefarious villain to end an adventurer's life because of a unilateral decision by a GM that a player's action declaration for his/her PC could not succeed. Not when the rules clearly provide a device for determining whether or not an attempt to influence a NPC succeeds - that is, by way of a CHA check.</p><p></p><p>Sure it might be possible. Equally it might not be so - maybe the tyrant <em>can </em>be influenced. <em>That's what the dice roll is for</em>. If the check fails, now we know that the tyrant is not in a mental place to listen to reason.</p><p></p><p>But the principles I just quotd don't say<em> the GM should decide what is or isn't possible based on his/her sense of what is likely</em>, let alone <em>what is possible</em> or <em>what s/he wants to have happen</em>. They talk about <em>together </em>creating an exciting and memorable story, and thereby having a good time.</p><p></p><p>The OP makes it clear that that episode of play did not lead unequivocally to everyone having a good time. Hence this thread. Hence my posts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8005014, member: 42582"] My point is that the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for. I particularly don't see how [I]the possibility of a meaningful consequence for failure[/I] - which there clearly was in this case - can be a basis for deciding that an action fails without calling for a check. And I don't see that it is good GMing to decide that a task is impossible when there is no reason in genre or logic for it to be so, and when - as appeared to happen in this case - it will create a less-than-satsifactory experience to so decide. I thought the topic of this thread is - roughly, and perhaps among other things - what makes for good or bad GMing. As [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] postred upthread, the OP has a hint at least that the GM wasn't fully satisfied with how things played out. Nothing I've read in the Basic PDF suggests that the GM should make decisions in an unpricpled way. What are the principles? Well in the PDF p 2 says the following: [INDENT]Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.[/INDENT] For me, key words are [I]together [/I]and [I]everyone[/I]. The GM should be making decisions about when to allow a possibility of success having regard to the group nature of the roleplaying adventure. It doesn't seem consistent with those principles, to me at least, for a nefarious villain to end an adventurer's life because of a unilateral decision by a GM that a player's action declaration for his/her PC could not succeed. Not when the rules clearly provide a device for determining whether or not an attempt to influence a NPC succeeds - that is, by way of a CHA check. Sure it might be possible. Equally it might not be so - maybe the tyrant [I]can [/I]be influenced. [I]That's what the dice roll is for[/I]. If the check fails, now we know that the tyrant is not in a mental place to listen to reason. But the principles I just quotd don't say[I] the GM should decide what is or isn't possible based on his/her sense of what is likely[/I], let alone [I]what is possible[/I] or [I]what s/he wants to have happen[/I]. They talk about [I]together [/I]creating an exciting and memorable story, and thereby having a good time. The OP makes it clear that that episode of play did not lead unequivocally to everyone having a good time. Hence this thread. Hence my posts. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
Top