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 LIVE! 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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8506089" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>The form letter opening and closing is rather passive aggressive levels of snark, yes? What value do you think this adds?</p><p></p><p>So the response was snarky? But then you go on to defend it? I'm confused, was your response 100% or not?</p><p></p><p>Let's break this down -- what was the result of the failed STR check to climb the cliff? Well, it can't be telegraphing a fall as you say, because that had to already be part of the initial framing (assuming here that there's elided steps where this is presented, of course). You can't introduce a new 100'+ fall because of the failure, the chance and therefore foreshadowing of such a fall being possible has to be present in the initial framing! So, in effect, the chance of a 100' fall isn't new or because of the failure -- it cannot be unless you're suddenly increasing the height of the cliff to make it so! This doesn't track. So, the actual outcome of the failure is -- no change in the fiction.</p><p></p><p>The end result of the failed check, called for (according to your previous post and this one) at the point where there's an overhang at sufficient height to cause a 100' or more fall is that the character doesn't fall, the initial framing of the obstacle is presented again without change, and the character is offered the chance to try again. The summation of this is "no progress." Nothing in the above changes this, unless we're assuming that this is a different overhang, suddenly introduced?</p><p></p><p>At a larger scale, though, I'm confused why you've chosen different adjudication between case 1 and case 3. In both cases, the action declaration is climbing the cliff. In both cases, the fictional positioning with regard to the cliff is identical. Yet you chose to challenge the larger PC goal in case 1, but only stick with the fictional outputs of an attempt to climb a cliff in case 3. I do not understand why you make this choice in which consequence schema to apply. This is, of course, taking for arguments sake that your presentation in case 3 doesn't have any issues (ie, it's entirely separate from my criticism above).</p><p></p><p>I can trivially provide narrations for all three while avoiding "no progress" results. I don't ask these kinds of questions I'm not prepared to answer myself. I provided this answer above -- climbing a cliff alone provides plenty of challenge, and I can choose from a suite of possible consequences that only deal with climbing a cliff. I, at no point, need to look to a larger goal to challenge for these in 5e. If it takes longer than is available to climb the cliff in case 1, causing the ritual to complete, well that's going to just come out in the wash in dealing with any actions to climb the cliff. I don't need to consider that goal as an control on what consequences I can provide. I did not understand why you needed higher level goals to adjudicate the climb, which is why I started my questions at the resolution of the direct fictional inputs into the climb mechanics for 5e. The one that you said you had to have larger scope goals to even tell if a consequence is available. I followed along there because I thought that you had some idea as to how it worked that escaped me -- it was certainly a different argument than is made by others that argue the rules as you have. I was genuinely curious. I gave the three examples I did because they hit at different kinds of motivations, which I though might illumination your approach more fully. It doesn't appear to be the case.</p><p></p><p>So, my answer to how to narrate each is that there's nothing there that requires different narrations for each -- they can all be adjudicated the same way and work out just fine.</p><p></p><p>I don't see how death was on the table for 3 and not for 1, if all the cliffs and action declarations were the same?! Was falling to their death never a possibility for 1?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8506089, member: 16814"] The form letter opening and closing is rather passive aggressive levels of snark, yes? What value do you think this adds? So the response was snarky? But then you go on to defend it? I'm confused, was your response 100% or not? Let's break this down -- what was the result of the failed STR check to climb the cliff? Well, it can't be telegraphing a fall as you say, because that had to already be part of the initial framing (assuming here that there's elided steps where this is presented, of course). You can't introduce a new 100'+ fall because of the failure, the chance and therefore foreshadowing of such a fall being possible has to be present in the initial framing! So, in effect, the chance of a 100' fall isn't new or because of the failure -- it cannot be unless you're suddenly increasing the height of the cliff to make it so! This doesn't track. So, the actual outcome of the failure is -- no change in the fiction. The end result of the failed check, called for (according to your previous post and this one) at the point where there's an overhang at sufficient height to cause a 100' or more fall is that the character doesn't fall, the initial framing of the obstacle is presented again without change, and the character is offered the chance to try again. The summation of this is "no progress." Nothing in the above changes this, unless we're assuming that this is a different overhang, suddenly introduced? At a larger scale, though, I'm confused why you've chosen different adjudication between case 1 and case 3. In both cases, the action declaration is climbing the cliff. In both cases, the fictional positioning with regard to the cliff is identical. Yet you chose to challenge the larger PC goal in case 1, but only stick with the fictional outputs of an attempt to climb a cliff in case 3. I do not understand why you make this choice in which consequence schema to apply. This is, of course, taking for arguments sake that your presentation in case 3 doesn't have any issues (ie, it's entirely separate from my criticism above). I can trivially provide narrations for all three while avoiding "no progress" results. I don't ask these kinds of questions I'm not prepared to answer myself. I provided this answer above -- climbing a cliff alone provides plenty of challenge, and I can choose from a suite of possible consequences that only deal with climbing a cliff. I, at no point, need to look to a larger goal to challenge for these in 5e. If it takes longer than is available to climb the cliff in case 1, causing the ritual to complete, well that's going to just come out in the wash in dealing with any actions to climb the cliff. I don't need to consider that goal as an control on what consequences I can provide. I did not understand why you needed higher level goals to adjudicate the climb, which is why I started my questions at the resolution of the direct fictional inputs into the climb mechanics for 5e. The one that you said you had to have larger scope goals to even tell if a consequence is available. I followed along there because I thought that you had some idea as to how it worked that escaped me -- it was certainly a different argument than is made by others that argue the rules as you have. I was genuinely curious. I gave the three examples I did because they hit at different kinds of motivations, which I though might illumination your approach more fully. It doesn't appear to be the case. So, my answer to how to narrate each is that there's nothing there that requires different narrations for each -- they can all be adjudicated the same way and work out just fine. I don't see how death was on the table for 3 and not for 1, if all the cliffs and action declarations were the same?! Was falling to their death never a possibility for 1? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game
Top