Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8648470" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Ok, the Ranger says to the table:&quot;I believe I remember the tale of Averandox the Fury of Winter.&nbsp; A great and terrible White Dragon who terrorized the communities around those mountaintops.&nbsp; Perhaps a tale about his lair...a secret entrance maybe...or the resources (eg Lair Actions) that he can bring to bear within.&quot;Has Favored Enemy Dragon, +2 Int, and Proficiency History.What happens now?&nbsp; You say &quot;yes?&quot;&nbsp; You say &quot;no?&quot;&nbsp; You say &quot;roll dice?&quot; Why?If you say &quot;roll dice&quot;, what is your process for setting the DC and what is the DC?If the Ranger didn't have Favored Enemy Dragon...do you let another PC Help?&nbsp; Why yes or no and what are the constraints on that?&nbsp; If &quot;yes&quot; and the roll fails, what liability is &quot;the Helper&quot; assuming?If they succeed what do you say?&nbsp; Why?If they fail by 2 what do you say?&nbsp; Why?If they fail by 4 what do you say?&nbsp; Why?If they fail by 6 what do you say?&nbsp; Why?If they roll a 1 what do you say?&nbsp; Why?Finally, if the Ranger doesn't have Favored Enemy Dragons/Prof History/Good Int Mod but elects to cast &quot;Speak With Plants&quot; on a wise, old Treant in the forest below the tree line of the mountain region where Averandox lairs with the intention of learning the same information as above...how do you handle the ruling here?Is it &quot;yes&quot; because &quot;wise, old Treant in the mountain range of Averandox?&quot;&nbsp; Is it yes because &quot;Ranger just spent a pretty significant resource to attain this info?&quot;If not &quot;yes&quot; and not &quot;no&quot;, is the answer &quot;same DC as the prior situation conceived above?&quot;&nbsp; Do you give the Treant History Proficiency because &quot;wise, old Treant in the mountain range of Averandox?&quot;&nbsp; If it is an alternative DC for the Treant...why?If we're going with &quot;Treant rolls Int + Prof History&quot; and they get a success, is it the same info as if the Ranger rolled Int + Adv for Favored Enemy + Prof History?&nbsp; If failure, then what?&nbsp; Same?&nbsp; Why?Do you let the Ranger Help or another PC?&nbsp; Why, why not, etc?EDIT - because I don’t want to make a separate post.[USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] , the use of “unwittingly” wasn’t intended as pejorative. Everyone (certainly myself included) does or says things due to some or another level of unawareness (or even just a preoccupied kind momentarily forgetting…I do that on the regular). It’s no big deal. I just saw a 1-3 that looked like bog-standard Fail Forward in its formulation yet called something else so that was my sincere reaction to it.As far as Force vs Fiat, I broke that out upthread. Check post 1817. My takeaway as it pertains to 5e is:* It’s impossible to run without Fiat. It’s baked in to a degree rarely seen in TTRPG design. Whether that is principally guided or arbitrary depends. But even principally guided Fiat in 5e is fraught because of the extreme zoom (and therefore discretion and latitude) inherent to 5e principles (which I captured upthread).* It’s possible to run 5e without Force (I’ve done it) though it’s an enormous effort and requires rather significant cognitive load and table handling time to (a) remain disciplined and aware within your effort and (b) make the process of action resolution mediation abundantly transparent. The question becomes “is the juice worth the squeeze.”I don’t see 5e as conducive to the type of GMing I’m speaking about directly above. WotC’s APs + GMing in the wild + testimonials on ENWorld and everywhere else on the internet bear that out pretty robustly. The abundance of GMing 5e is breezy, story-and-Power Fantasy-need-directed which means this becomes the principal for Fiat and it means that sometimes that Fiat manifests as player/system-input-subordinating Force.In other words, High Concept Simulationism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8648470, member: 6696971"] Ok, the Ranger says to the table: "I believe I remember the tale of Averandox the Fury of Winter. A great and terrible White Dragon who terrorized the communities around those mountaintops. Perhaps a tale about his lair...a secret entrance maybe...or the resources (eg Lair Actions) that he can bring to bear within." Has Favored Enemy Dragon, +2 Int, and Proficiency History. What happens now? You say "yes?" You say "no?" You say "roll dice?" Why? If you say "roll dice", what is your process for setting the DC and what is the DC? If the Ranger didn't have Favored Enemy Dragon...do you let another PC Help? Why yes or no and what are the constraints on that? If "yes" and the roll fails, what liability is "the Helper" assuming? If they succeed what do you say? Why? If they fail by 2 what do you say? Why? If they fail by 4 what do you say? Why? If they fail by 6 what do you say? Why? If they roll a 1 what do you say? Why? Finally, if the Ranger doesn't have Favored Enemy Dragons/Prof History/Good Int Mod but elects to cast "Speak With Plants" on a wise, old Treant in the forest below the tree line of the mountain region where Averandox lairs with the intention of learning the same information as above...how do you handle the ruling here? Is it "yes" because "wise, old Treant in the mountain range of Averandox?" Is it yes because "Ranger just spent a pretty significant resource to attain this info?" If not "yes" and not "no", is the answer "same DC as the prior situation conceived above?" Do you give the Treant History Proficiency because "wise, old Treant in the mountain range of Averandox?" If it is an alternative DC for the Treant...why? If we're going with "Treant rolls Int + Prof History" and they get a success, is it the same info as if the Ranger rolled Int + Adv for Favored Enemy + Prof History? If failure, then what? Same? Why? Do you let the Ranger Help or another PC? Why, why not, etc? EDIT - because I don’t want to make a separate post. [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] , the use of “unwittingly” wasn’t intended as pejorative. Everyone (certainly myself included) does or says things due to some or another level of unawareness (or even just a preoccupied kind momentarily forgetting…I do that on the regular). It’s no big deal. I just saw a 1-3 that looked like bog-standard Fail Forward in its formulation yet called something else so that was my sincere reaction to it. As far as Force vs Fiat, I broke that out upthread. Check post 1817. My takeaway as it pertains to 5e is: * It’s impossible to run without Fiat. It’s baked in to a degree rarely seen in TTRPG design. Whether that is principally guided or arbitrary depends. But even principally guided Fiat in 5e is fraught because of the extreme zoom (and therefore discretion and latitude) inherent to 5e principles (which I captured upthread). * It’s possible to run 5e without Force (I’ve done it) though it’s an enormous effort and requires rather significant cognitive load and table handling time to (a) remain disciplined and aware within your effort and (b) make the process of action resolution mediation abundantly transparent. The question becomes “is the juice worth the squeeze.” I don’t see 5e as conducive to the type of GMing I’m speaking about directly above. WotC’s APs + GMing in the wild + testimonials on ENWorld and everywhere else on the internet bear that out pretty robustly. The abundance of GMing 5e is breezy, story-and-Power Fantasy-need-directed which means this becomes the principal for Fiat and it means that sometimes that Fiat manifests as player/system-input-subordinating Force. In other words, High Concept Simulationism. [/QUOTE]

Verification