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
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So 5 Intelligence Huh
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="iserith" data-source="post: 6845664" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>The rule is very simple and applies to all parties involved in the interaction: If you try to harm or hinder another player character, the target of the harm or hindrance decides the outcome. It does NOT prevent players from making action declarations. It's exactly the same as any other action declaration with the exception of who narrates the outcome. If the players are acting in good faith, then the conflict will unfold in the manner the players mutually desire. In my experience, intra-party conflict is pretty rare, but there are additional contributing factors to this in my view: (1) My campaign does not lack for conflict outside the bounds of the party - there are plenty of monsters and NPCs to beat up and rob, so turning on other PCs seems pointless; (2) We establish relationships between the characters on par with Dungeon World's bonds prior to play (even in one-shots); (3) I foster an atmosphere where players add onto ideas they hear to make them better rather than shoot them down outright.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not clear to me what context is missing for you to answer concretely. An Int-5 character wants to turn a dial on a door to the "S" position. As for the "missing step," why should there be a test to see if the character can have this desire in the first place? If a player said something like, "I try to deduce whether 'S' is the right answer before turning the dial..." then what we have, potentially, is a player trying to verify his or her assumptions prior to taking action. If 'S' is wrong, then there might be consequences, after all, and this is an example of smart play that might very well call for an ability check. The player choosing to just turn the dial to "S" without verifying his or her assumption is taking a chance (albeit probably not a big one in this particular example as the puzzle is pretty easy).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6845664, member: 97077"] The rule is very simple and applies to all parties involved in the interaction: If you try to harm or hinder another player character, the target of the harm or hindrance decides the outcome. It does NOT prevent players from making action declarations. It's exactly the same as any other action declaration with the exception of who narrates the outcome. If the players are acting in good faith, then the conflict will unfold in the manner the players mutually desire. In my experience, intra-party conflict is pretty rare, but there are additional contributing factors to this in my view: (1) My campaign does not lack for conflict outside the bounds of the party - there are plenty of monsters and NPCs to beat up and rob, so turning on other PCs seems pointless; (2) We establish relationships between the characters on par with Dungeon World's bonds prior to play (even in one-shots); (3) I foster an atmosphere where players add onto ideas they hear to make them better rather than shoot them down outright. It's not clear to me what context is missing for you to answer concretely. An Int-5 character wants to turn a dial on a door to the "S" position. As for the "missing step," why should there be a test to see if the character can have this desire in the first place? If a player said something like, "I try to deduce whether 'S' is the right answer before turning the dial..." then what we have, potentially, is a player trying to verify his or her assumptions prior to taking action. If 'S' is wrong, then there might be consequences, after all, and this is an example of smart play that might very well call for an ability check. The player choosing to just turn the dial to "S" without verifying his or her assumption is taking a chance (albeit probably not a big one in this particular example as the puzzle is pretty easy). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
So 5 Intelligence Huh
Top