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
*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="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8018545" data-attributes="member: 23751"><p>No I don't think it should be done, unless that's how you guys really love to play. For me and my group it would not only destroy a large portion of the game's mystery, but would drag us kicking and screaming out of immersion, turning D&D into a gamist game. I don't want to play a game of numbers when I roleplay. If I wanted that, I'd play a board game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it sounds like a horrible system(for me) that makes Blades more about being a game than roleplaying the character and immersing yourself in the story. The less often mechanics pull me out of the story the better.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So what. So AC has a mechanic. Without a specific score being given for that dragon, the players are more likely to make a bad decision with the dragon than with the Baron. One AC 16 is beatable. The other AC 22 is not. The players aren't going to know which is which from the description, "The dragon is armored." All of their knowledge of attack bonuses, spells and damage don't matter all that much, since they have no number to compare them to. Hell, that statement could even mean that this dragon wears some sort of barding that makes it even harder to hit.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're basically arguing that the player not knowing whether they need a 14 or higher to hit or need a natural 20 to hit, gives them an idea of their odds and how things work. That's ridiculous. The odds vary so wildly between those two points that any group that relies on them thinking that they "have an idea of the odds." deserves the TPK that they will eventually walk into.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Fat lot of good that will do the PCs' corpses if they walk into a dragon fight needing natural 20's to hit.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's even more clearly defined. Instead of the wildly vague and destructive 14 to natural 20 to hit, they have crystal clear knowledge that the Baron is insane and will be very highly likely to have them tortured or killed if they insult him.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is wrong. With only the knowledge in the OP, I know with crystal clarity to not even attempt intimidation. Trying to intimidate someone who is insane and would react with lethal force to an attempt at intimidation would be stupid, and I'm not stupid. I also know with crystal clarity that deception is pretty risky, but not as risky as intimidation. Someone that insane and touchy about things will probably react poorly to being lied to, but probably not as badly as if I tried to intimidate him. Persuasion would absolutely be the best way to go, IF I even want to risk a conversation with a madman, which I probably don't.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure I do. Intimidation = AC 22. I'm very likely to end up dead and take my party down with me. Deception would AC 18ish. Possibly winnable, but still risky. Persuasion would be AC 16. We can win this one, but it's not guaranteed. It's the least risky.</p><p></p><p>I have a clear enough picture of the Baron to make those assessments and assign AC equivalents to the social skills.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is why I'm not going to do something so stupid as to insult a crazy, insult sensitive ruler and risk a reaction with no roll. If the players use their brains even a little bit, it's really easy to avoid auto failures in social situations. That leaves only auto successes and having to roll the dice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8018545, member: 23751"] No I don't think it should be done, unless that's how you guys really love to play. For me and my group it would not only destroy a large portion of the game's mystery, but would drag us kicking and screaming out of immersion, turning D&D into a gamist game. I don't want to play a game of numbers when I roleplay. If I wanted that, I'd play a board game. I think it sounds like a horrible system(for me) that makes Blades more about being a game than roleplaying the character and immersing yourself in the story. The less often mechanics pull me out of the story the better. So what. So AC has a mechanic. Without a specific score being given for that dragon, the players are more likely to make a bad decision with the dragon than with the Baron. One AC 16 is beatable. The other AC 22 is not. The players aren't going to know which is which from the description, "The dragon is armored." All of their knowledge of attack bonuses, spells and damage don't matter all that much, since they have no number to compare them to. Hell, that statement could even mean that this dragon wears some sort of barding that makes it even harder to hit. You're basically arguing that the player not knowing whether they need a 14 or higher to hit or need a natural 20 to hit, gives them an idea of their odds and how things work. That's ridiculous. The odds vary so wildly between those two points that any group that relies on them thinking that they "have an idea of the odds." deserves the TPK that they will eventually walk into. Fat lot of good that will do the PCs' corpses if they walk into a dragon fight needing natural 20's to hit. It's even more clearly defined. Instead of the wildly vague and destructive 14 to natural 20 to hit, they have crystal clear knowledge that the Baron is insane and will be very highly likely to have them tortured or killed if they insult him. This is wrong. With only the knowledge in the OP, I know with crystal clarity to not even attempt intimidation. Trying to intimidate someone who is insane and would react with lethal force to an attempt at intimidation would be stupid, and I'm not stupid. I also know with crystal clarity that deception is pretty risky, but not as risky as intimidation. Someone that insane and touchy about things will probably react poorly to being lied to, but probably not as badly as if I tried to intimidate him. Persuasion would absolutely be the best way to go, IF I even want to risk a conversation with a madman, which I probably don't. Sure I do. Intimidation = AC 22. I'm very likely to end up dead and take my party down with me. Deception would AC 18ish. Possibly winnable, but still risky. Persuasion would be AC 16. We can win this one, but it's not guaranteed. It's the least risky. I have a clear enough picture of the Baron to make those assessments and assign AC equivalents to the social skills. Which is why I'm not going to do something so stupid as to insult a crazy, insult sensitive ruler and risk a reaction with no roll. If the players use their brains even a little bit, it's really easy to avoid auto failures in social situations. That leaves only auto successes and having to roll the dice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
Top