Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8417689" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Remember my 5e thread "DC 30...35?" from days of yore (what was that...2015?  16?).  Genre logic vs this "play worlds"/in-setting naturalistic causal logic was one of the primary aspects of DC handling that I was trying to suss out in that thread.  Unsurprisingly, there not only wasn't a consensus on use-case handling, but it deviated wildly.  No one could pin down 5e's procedures and principles (because the designers, intentionally, leave it up to the GM) as they relate to these two very different approaches to handling both (a) setting DCs and (b) deriving Consequences post-action resolution.The fact that this is both (i) left for the GM to sort out and (ii) the GM facing nature of the process is intentionally inscrutable on a case-in/case-out basis has far-reaching implications on play.  This is a large component of that feedback loop I mentioned above in my break-out of System's Say / GM's Say / Player's Say.  A game that may rise to a 3 in Player's Say (vs a 6 in GM's Say), but it doesn't start out that way because the player has to gain the experience necessary to decode when a GM is apt to use genre logic and when they're apt to "play worlds"/in-setting naturalistic causal logic in both (a) and (b) above (and sometimes that is completely incoherent...the GM might use "play worlds"/in-setting naturalistic causal logic to set the DC but then use genre logic to derive Consequences post-action resolution....or they might do vice versa...and it might change on another, similar use-case!).  In such a case, Player's Say would start out at perhaps a 1.5 (with GM's Say starting at 7.5), but, after a year or so of play under that GM, they might suss out the GM's predilections and "earn" that extra 1.5 to arrive at the Holy Grail of 3</blockquote>

Verification