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
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
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="clearstream" data-source="post: 8695065" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>What seems to be at issue is the degree of obligation on what others say when one player declares they have some item.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>System A: </strong>player decides in advance how many slots their character has<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">they can later declare they have any item that fits those slots (using them up as they do so)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">others are obliged to agree</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>System B: </strong>player decides in advance what items their character has<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">they may later declare they have some item they didn't decide on in advance</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">others aren't obliged to agree; they're only obliged to agree that they have the items decided on in advance</li> </ul></li> </ul><p>The systems I would contrast for <strong>A</strong> and <strong>B</strong> would be <strong>BitD</strong> and <strong>TB2</strong>. To me, the comparison with Knowledge checks would imply a system like this</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>System C: </strong>player decides in advance the probabilities their character has of having items<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">they can later declare they have an item and make a roll (just as items in <strong>A</strong> have slot-values, items in <strong>C</strong> will have target numbers)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">others are obliged to agree, <strong>iff</strong> they make their roll</li> </ul></li> </ul><p>Regarding <strong>C</strong>, per RAW DM isn't calling for an ability check in 5e just to find out if a character knows something. They're only calling for roll because there are meaningful consequences. An example might be where it matters that the character can recall the author of a painting at a glance. Another example could be where an obscure fact such as the precise time and place it was painted matters. I think one can concede that a character has the requisite knowledge, without conceding that they can always recall it in an instant, or recall every precise detail. Bearing in mind that in 5e where time-taken doesn't matter, the recollection if possible always succeeds (simply taking longer... perhaps a visit to a library, consultation with a friend, or a good ponder.) For me at least 5e doesn't here supply the best analogy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8695065, member: 71699"] What seems to be at issue is the degree of obligation on what others say when one player declares they have some item. [LIST] [*][B]System A: [/B]player decides in advance how many slots their character has [LIST] [*]they can later declare they have any item that fits those slots (using them up as they do so) [*]others are obliged to agree [/LIST] [*][B]System B: [/B]player decides in advance what items their character has [LIST] [*]they may later declare they have some item they didn't decide on in advance [*]others aren't obliged to agree; they're only obliged to agree that they have the items decided on in advance [/LIST] [/LIST] The systems I would contrast for [B]A[/B] and [B]B[/B] would be [B]BitD[/B] and [B]TB2[/B]. To me, the comparison with Knowledge checks would imply a system like this [LIST] [*][B]System C: [/B]player decides in advance the probabilities their character has of having items [LIST] [*]they can later declare they have an item and make a roll (just as items in [B]A[/B] have slot-values, items in [B]C[/B] will have target numbers) [*]others are obliged to agree, [B]iff[/B] they make their roll [/LIST] [/LIST] Regarding [B]C[/B], per RAW DM isn't calling for an ability check in 5e just to find out if a character knows something. They're only calling for roll because there are meaningful consequences. An example might be where it matters that the character can recall the author of a painting at a glance. Another example could be where an obscure fact such as the precise time and place it was painted matters. I think one can concede that a character has the requisite knowledge, without conceding that they can always recall it in an instant, or recall every precise detail. Bearing in mind that in 5e where time-taken doesn't matter, the recollection if possible always succeeds (simply taking longer... perhaps a visit to a library, consultation with a friend, or a good ponder.) For me at least 5e doesn't here supply the best analogy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top