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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Surprise and Sneak Attack
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: 8079702" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Well, for starters, this example could pnly happen in my game after a series of serious failures by the PCs, because I'm not a jerk GM. </p><p></p><p>That said, if I thought the outcome of this wasn't uncertain, then, yup, better grab a new character sheet. The fundamental play loop of the game remains unchanged: it is the GM's authority to decide if player actions declarations succeed, fail, or are uncertain. The more detailed resolution mechanics for combat do not change this. Granted, the rules atrongly lean towards treating any violence as uncertain, largely because such a huge chunk of thise rules deal with uncertain violence resolution, but it doesn't remove the GM's ability to decide. </p><p></p><p>In other words, nothing about combat overrides the GM's authority to declare success, failure, or uncertainty of an action. This remains true even inside the combat loop. Principled play, by which I mean the GM follows clear principles of play so everyone at the table understands and can anticipate rulings, are critical in a game like D&D. Traditionally, and sadly, nost if not all of these has been rooted in the rules -- either taking a rules as a must and always using it or using a gap in the rule as allowing whatever isn't proscribed, again always. 5e makes this hard because it leans heavily on GM decides as it's core mechanic. This leaves many in a quandry because it doesn't provide a strong principle set via the rules as written. Therefore, people take what rules there are and fashion them into ironclad principle sets, which, if challenged or if a different approach is presented, feel like your principles are under attack. Like how combat rules must be used if hp are involved are justified by the detailed rules, forgetting that thise rules nest inside the broader set where GM's always retain the authority to decide outcome.</p><p></p><p>To be clear, it's 100% awesome if you always rule anything like combat is uncertain and use the combat rules. That's a very principled approach. It, however, isn't the only one, or best one. The best one is, of course, the one that maximizes fun at your table. So, best for you is as good as it gets. But, using the combat rules is not required by the ruleset of 5e unless the GM determines uncertainty (a generally wise determination), and there are other, equally principled approaches that work. </p><p></p><p>Finally, I'd like to, as is my wont, to caution against agruments from jerkdom. It seems common to challenge a different approach by postulating a situation caused by jerks, like the above GM having an NPC assassinating a PC by fiat. This may seem to support your argument because this can't happen with your approach, but that's a false appearance. For starters, you've assumed that the other poster is a complete jerk and doesn't have other principles that would prevent the situation from occurring. Second, your method doesn't really prevent a different jerk from breaking it either -- for example you can have a 20th level wizard NPC cast meteor swarm on the same PC from a far distance, and employing the combat rules diesn't change tge outcome. If this immediately raises a "I wouldn't do that, it's a jerk move," defense, then don't postulate jerks on other posters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8079702, member: 16814"] Well, for starters, this example could pnly happen in my game after a series of serious failures by the PCs, because I'm not a jerk GM. That said, if I thought the outcome of this wasn't uncertain, then, yup, better grab a new character sheet. The fundamental play loop of the game remains unchanged: it is the GM's authority to decide if player actions declarations succeed, fail, or are uncertain. The more detailed resolution mechanics for combat do not change this. Granted, the rules atrongly lean towards treating any violence as uncertain, largely because such a huge chunk of thise rules deal with uncertain violence resolution, but it doesn't remove the GM's ability to decide. In other words, nothing about combat overrides the GM's authority to declare success, failure, or uncertainty of an action. This remains true even inside the combat loop. Principled play, by which I mean the GM follows clear principles of play so everyone at the table understands and can anticipate rulings, are critical in a game like D&D. Traditionally, and sadly, nost if not all of these has been rooted in the rules -- either taking a rules as a must and always using it or using a gap in the rule as allowing whatever isn't proscribed, again always. 5e makes this hard because it leans heavily on GM decides as it's core mechanic. This leaves many in a quandry because it doesn't provide a strong principle set via the rules as written. Therefore, people take what rules there are and fashion them into ironclad principle sets, which, if challenged or if a different approach is presented, feel like your principles are under attack. Like how combat rules must be used if hp are involved are justified by the detailed rules, forgetting that thise rules nest inside the broader set where GM's always retain the authority to decide outcome. To be clear, it's 100% awesome if you always rule anything like combat is uncertain and use the combat rules. That's a very principled approach. It, however, isn't the only one, or best one. The best one is, of course, the one that maximizes fun at your table. So, best for you is as good as it gets. But, using the combat rules is not required by the ruleset of 5e unless the GM determines uncertainty (a generally wise determination), and there are other, equally principled approaches that work. Finally, I'd like to, as is my wont, to caution against agruments from jerkdom. It seems common to challenge a different approach by postulating a situation caused by jerks, like the above GM having an NPC assassinating a PC by fiat. This may seem to support your argument because this can't happen with your approach, but that's a false appearance. For starters, you've assumed that the other poster is a complete jerk and doesn't have other principles that would prevent the situation from occurring. Second, your method doesn't really prevent a different jerk from breaking it either -- for example you can have a 20th level wizard NPC cast meteor swarm on the same PC from a far distance, and employing the combat rules diesn't change tge outcome. If this immediately raises a "I wouldn't do that, it's a jerk move," defense, then don't postulate jerks on other posters. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Surprise and Sneak Attack
Top