Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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
Renamed Thread: "The Illusion of Agency"
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9547713" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Core problem: Your foregoing argument and your personal requests conflict, within the context of D&D and its relatives. That is, <em>in D&D</em>, the only mechanic that inserts uncertainty involves the rolling of dice. One can argue that the intersection of uncertain player intent and uncertain DM response is another "mechanic" that inserts uncertainty, but I don't think that's adequate to meet your gameplay needs here. I'll assume your (a) condition is actually slightly softer than the exact words (that is, "there's a chance for everyone to not notice it"), since as phrased, your requirement is broken if it just so happens that randomness permitted the rare situation that everyone notices it, especially if it just so happens that everyone in the party is an "observant" character (e.g. not just an elven ranger, but also an elven wizard, an elven swordmage, etc.)</p><p></p><p>So, either we need to create a new mechanic that inserts uncertainty upon request, or we need to accept some kind of not-entirely-uncertain way to add obstacles to success in this context, or we need to accept that "rolling dice to resolve uncertainty" is the only (in-D&D) method to achieve this end.</p><p></p><p>Dungeon World, the system I run, achieves this with the third option and changes the nature of the situation. That is, if there's legitimately nothing to find, then the player doing the actions that correspond to <em>Discern Realities</em> will simply be told that their search turns up nothing, without needing to invoke the rules at all. This reflects...not so much a "principle" (which has a formal definition in PbtA games), as a guiding philosophy: <em>do not roll unless success and failure are both interesting outcomes</em>. If success is impossible/implausible and failure isn't interesting, don't bother with taking up time by rolling, just tell them. If success is possible and plausible, and failure has no meaning/impact, just let the success happen--especially if the success is interesting. Finally, if both success and failure are interesting, include degrees of success.</p><p></p><p>D&D struggles with degrees-of-success because its roll mechanics are naturally binary. PF2e tries to break out of this by defining critical results (success or failure) as being above/below the target number <em>by some amount</em>. Knowledge checks in D&D have sometimes used something like this, where there isn't one DC but 3+, and the players get the sum of all the best results they meet or beat. Dungeon World has it naturally built-in.</p><p></p><p>Finally, failure on knowledge- or perception-related skills is often a Problem for D&D-alikes, because the players know not to trust a result that came from rolling a nat 1. It's not explicitly stated, but my interpretation of how to fix this in DW is that, when the players fail a Discern Realities roll, I <em>make</em> them ask any one question--and the answer will be one they won't like. Effectively, <em>something</em> is always learned, but on a failure the thing you learn is a bad fact that you wish wasn't true.</p><p></p><p>One option, which could theoretically aid with all of this stuff but would be non-trivial to implement, would be to include a deck of cards as an additional/alternative source of randomness. I would actually recommend a tarot deck with some of the cards removed. For example, you could keep just the major arcana, and have each with defined impacts; you could even count whether the card is drawn reversed or not. Invoke the deck when uncertainty is needed but the outcome needs to be more specific/textured than what a die roll can produce.</p><p></p><p></p><p>D&D-alikes struggle with this, but it isn't just this. How would one provide players the ability to make their character "more educated than others" without involving dice? What about folks who are more discerning, meaning, folks who have better judgment about the correct choice to make? Folks who are more compelling to other people? Etc.</p><p></p><p>"Passive" checks are one solution, but that's basically just an invisible d20 roll. Another option could be using a character's raw ability score, with some modifiers intended to recognize traits (like "elven" and "ranger") that should reasonably improve that thing. A third is more evinced by 4e, though 5e technically also permits it: trained vs untrained matters, and a trained person can sometimes simply do things an untrained person can't, or can just succeed at something that an untrained person would struggle to do.</p><p></p><p>Outside of that, there's...really not much D&D offers in this arena, especially 5e, because of the emphasis on "DM Says."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9547713, member: 6790260"] Core problem: Your foregoing argument and your personal requests conflict, within the context of D&D and its relatives. That is, [I]in D&D[/I], the only mechanic that inserts uncertainty involves the rolling of dice. One can argue that the intersection of uncertain player intent and uncertain DM response is another "mechanic" that inserts uncertainty, but I don't think that's adequate to meet your gameplay needs here. I'll assume your (a) condition is actually slightly softer than the exact words (that is, "there's a chance for everyone to not notice it"), since as phrased, your requirement is broken if it just so happens that randomness permitted the rare situation that everyone notices it, especially if it just so happens that everyone in the party is an "observant" character (e.g. not just an elven ranger, but also an elven wizard, an elven swordmage, etc.) So, either we need to create a new mechanic that inserts uncertainty upon request, or we need to accept some kind of not-entirely-uncertain way to add obstacles to success in this context, or we need to accept that "rolling dice to resolve uncertainty" is the only (in-D&D) method to achieve this end. Dungeon World, the system I run, achieves this with the third option and changes the nature of the situation. That is, if there's legitimately nothing to find, then the player doing the actions that correspond to [I]Discern Realities[/I] will simply be told that their search turns up nothing, without needing to invoke the rules at all. This reflects...not so much a "principle" (which has a formal definition in PbtA games), as a guiding philosophy: [I]do not roll unless success and failure are both interesting outcomes[/I]. If success is impossible/implausible and failure isn't interesting, don't bother with taking up time by rolling, just tell them. If success is possible and plausible, and failure has no meaning/impact, just let the success happen--especially if the success is interesting. Finally, if both success and failure are interesting, include degrees of success. D&D struggles with degrees-of-success because its roll mechanics are naturally binary. PF2e tries to break out of this by defining critical results (success or failure) as being above/below the target number [I]by some amount[/I]. Knowledge checks in D&D have sometimes used something like this, where there isn't one DC but 3+, and the players get the sum of all the best results they meet or beat. Dungeon World has it naturally built-in. Finally, failure on knowledge- or perception-related skills is often a Problem for D&D-alikes, because the players know not to trust a result that came from rolling a nat 1. It's not explicitly stated, but my interpretation of how to fix this in DW is that, when the players fail a Discern Realities roll, I [I]make[/I] them ask any one question--and the answer will be one they won't like. Effectively, [I]something[/I] is always learned, but on a failure the thing you learn is a bad fact that you wish wasn't true. One option, which could theoretically aid with all of this stuff but would be non-trivial to implement, would be to include a deck of cards as an additional/alternative source of randomness. I would actually recommend a tarot deck with some of the cards removed. For example, you could keep just the major arcana, and have each with defined impacts; you could even count whether the card is drawn reversed or not. Invoke the deck when uncertainty is needed but the outcome needs to be more specific/textured than what a die roll can produce. D&D-alikes struggle with this, but it isn't just this. How would one provide players the ability to make their character "more educated than others" without involving dice? What about folks who are more discerning, meaning, folks who have better judgment about the correct choice to make? Folks who are more compelling to other people? Etc. "Passive" checks are one solution, but that's basically just an invisible d20 roll. Another option could be using a character's raw ability score, with some modifiers intended to recognize traits (like "elven" and "ranger") that should reasonably improve that thing. A third is more evinced by 4e, though 5e technically also permits it: trained vs untrained matters, and a trained person can sometimes simply do things an untrained person can't, or can just succeed at something that an untrained person would struggle to do. Outside of that, there's...really not much D&D offers in this arena, especially 5e, because of the emphasis on "DM Says." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Renamed Thread: "The Illusion of Agency"
Top