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: 8006087" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I'm still not sure who you think is disputing the bolded clause.</p><p></p><p>As I have said, I am posting some thoughts about <em>the basis on which a GM might make decisions about when to call for a check</em>. It seems obvious to me that the rules which tells us what it is that ability scores represent in the fiction, and what it is that a check is for, are relevant to that.</p><p></p><p>To elaborate, and having regard not only to CHA (which I've already posted about) but to STR (which, says p 59 of the Basic PDF, "measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical forcce, consider [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER]'s example of the 3 mile wide canyon. In declaring that no check is possible, the GM is deciding that - in the fiction - the character lacks the bodily power and/or athletic training to make such a jump. This will not be controversial if the player's character resembles Aragorn; it will be controversial if the player's character resembles The Hulk; and depending on context) it might be controversial if the PC resembles some heroic or semi-divine character such as Beowulf or Hercules.</p><p></p><p>Suppose that rather than 3 miles wide the canyon is 20' wide. The GM deciding that - in the fiction - a character who resembles Aragorn in bodily power and/or athletic training automatically fails an attempt to jump that canyon would (I think) be controversial. Doubly so if the GM made that decision based primarily not on a consideration of what might be feasible in the fiction, but a consideration of what s/he would like to happen in the fiction (eg the canyon is intended as a barrier to constrain the geographic extent of the scene being resolved).</p><p></p><p>When it comes to CHA, and social interaction, parallel considerations apply. Is the GM being true to the fiction in having the tyrant be unflabble by opposition? Or is s/he deeming, in effect, that the PCs lack the sort of capacity to exercise influence that one might expect in fantasy heroes? Or even, is s/he just deciding - by fiat - how this particular bit of the fiction is to unfold, without regard to what the players want for their PCs?</p><p></p><p>The rules may not tell us what is the best approach here, but that doesn't mean it's pointless to talk about better and worse approaches. And as I've posted upthread, the Basic PDF even sets out some relevant principles - in particular, the <em>plural </em>contributions to the shared fiction and the goal of a <em>memorable and exciting story</em>. GM fiat that is grounded in desires for outcomes rather than fidelity to the fiction seems to contradict at least the first of those principels.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8006087, member: 42582"] I'm still not sure who you think is disputing the bolded clause. As I have said, I am posting some thoughts about [I]the basis on which a GM might make decisions about when to call for a check[/I]. It seems obvious to me that the rules which tells us what it is that ability scores represent in the fiction, and what it is that a check is for, are relevant to that. To elaborate, and having regard not only to CHA (which I've already posted about) but to STR (which, says p 59 of the Basic PDF, "measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical forcce, consider [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER]'s example of the 3 mile wide canyon. In declaring that no check is possible, the GM is deciding that - in the fiction - the character lacks the bodily power and/or athletic training to make such a jump. This will not be controversial if the player's character resembles Aragorn; it will be controversial if the player's character resembles The Hulk; and depending on context) it might be controversial if the PC resembles some heroic or semi-divine character such as Beowulf or Hercules. Suppose that rather than 3 miles wide the canyon is 20' wide. The GM deciding that - in the fiction - a character who resembles Aragorn in bodily power and/or athletic training automatically fails an attempt to jump that canyon would (I think) be controversial. Doubly so if the GM made that decision based primarily not on a consideration of what might be feasible in the fiction, but a consideration of what s/he would like to happen in the fiction (eg the canyon is intended as a barrier to constrain the geographic extent of the scene being resolved). When it comes to CHA, and social interaction, parallel considerations apply. Is the GM being true to the fiction in having the tyrant be unflabble by opposition? Or is s/he deeming, in effect, that the PCs lack the sort of capacity to exercise influence that one might expect in fantasy heroes? Or even, is s/he just deciding - by fiat - how this particular bit of the fiction is to unfold, without regard to what the players want for their PCs? The rules may not tell us what is the best approach here, but that doesn't mean it's pointless to talk about better and worse approaches. And as I've posted upthread, the Basic PDF even sets out some relevant principles - in particular, the [I]plural [/I]contributions to the shared fiction and the goal of a [I]memorable and exciting story[/I]. GM fiat that is grounded in desires for outcomes rather than fidelity to the fiction seems to contradict at least the first of those principels. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
Top