Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 6574141" data-attributes="member: 386">1) I agree.&nbsp; My game asks the DM to make a lot of judgement calls in explicit places.&nbsp; Like I said, I don't use damage dice, I use the description of the attack to determine how much damage has been done (and then I consult a table because I find HP a useful game element).&nbsp; What puzzles me is when the rules don't explicitly call for the DM to make a judgement call.&nbsp; I was hoping that 5E's skills would not be a codified list - Stealth, Perception, Religion, etc. - but instead simply the PC's background.&nbsp; Does the skill proficiency modifier apply?&nbsp; &quot;The DM determines if the skill proficiency modifier is applied to the check.&quot;&nbsp; I think that rule - to explicitly call for a ruling - is a lot more robust.I prefer games that have clear rules and procedures and, since I don't think it's feasible to cover every situation, use the fact that the game has a DM to good effect.&nbsp; My rules say that at the start of every encounter you make a Reaction Roll.&nbsp; The DM is then expected to determine what &quot;Uncertain, cautious, and wary&quot; means in context.&nbsp; A list covering every possible NPC reaction seems like it'd be difficult to use, let alone make!&nbsp; I don't enjoy games that basically say that the DM needs to determine if the rules are followed or ignored, moment-to-moment, based on meta-game considerations.&nbsp; I can see that being very difficult on the DM, how it makes it difficult for players to &quot;just play&quot; (that is, make decisions based on the rules and mechanics of the game), and how it creates &quot;perverse incentives&quot; for the players (playing the DM instead of the game).2) I'm not sure what your point is here.&nbsp; Does it have to do with rulings and rules?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 6574141, member: 386"] 1) I agree. My game asks the DM to make a lot of judgement calls in explicit places. Like I said, I don't use damage dice, I use the description of the attack to determine how much damage has been done (and then I consult a table because I find HP a useful game element). What puzzles me is when the rules don't explicitly call for the DM to make a judgement call. I was hoping that 5E's skills would not be a codified list - Stealth, Perception, Religion, etc. - but instead simply the PC's background. Does the skill proficiency modifier apply? "The DM determines if the skill proficiency modifier is applied to the check." I think that rule - to explicitly call for a ruling - is a lot more robust. I prefer games that have clear rules and procedures and, since I don't think it's feasible to cover every situation, use the fact that the game has a DM to good effect. My rules say that at the start of every encounter you make a Reaction Roll. The DM is then expected to determine what "Uncertain, cautious, and wary" means in context. A list covering every possible NPC reaction seems like it'd be difficult to use, let alone make! I don't enjoy games that basically say that the DM needs to determine if the rules are followed or ignored, moment-to-moment, based on meta-game considerations. I can see that being very difficult on the DM, how it makes it difficult for players to "just play" (that is, make decisions based on the rules and mechanics of the game), and how it creates "perverse incentives" for the players (playing the DM instead of the game). 2) I'm not sure what your point is here. Does it have to do with rulings and rules? [/QUOTE]

Verification