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
*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
*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
Using social skills on other PCs
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="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8481725" data-attributes="member: 7032025"><p>That's my point, it is not described. You assume that it is, but there is no requirement for it, as per the standard loop. And I've explained that we have banished it from our games, it's not required and it interferes with what the other PCs should know of that is happening. Only the description of the action is required, not the desired outcome. The example given is "We’ll take the east door" without any outcome like "... to avoid / find the goblins". Just the action.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope, not required, and actually with consequences.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What I'm saying is that because the (desired) outcome does not have to be described, the DM just has to interpret the success failure of the action described, and he can ascribe any level of progress towards any outcome without being constrained by a specific intent.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly, it absolutely depends on what the table expects and their prefered playstyle, it's not mandated in any way by the rules, that's all.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And that is fine if it's your preferred play style, and to be honest, I also do it now and then. There are also many cases, however, where I just trust the player, he he goes for something, it's because he has evaluated his chances as at least fair, and with the level of immersion that we usually have, it means that we are in agreement about the chances and possible consequences of success failure.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think that's what is important, you are right about the wording, I should have used something like "as supported as most other ways of doing it".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You do realise that the DC is in itself absolutely arbitrary in itself ? Everything is arbitrary from the DM's perspective anyway. Also, although I appreciate what you are saying about giving the DC, the rules leave the DM absolutely free there and we prefer not giving the exact DC to avoid any sort of metagaming. At best, we'll give an indication (as per the DMG estimate), but nothing says that the DC is spot on the DMG precise value.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That is fine as well, but since we are not giving away the DC anyway, and everything is arbitrary, my point is that giving a quality of result can be done in any sort of different fashions, all supported by the rules (whereas, in some systems for example Runequest, the quality of result is mandated by the dice roll, critical, special, normal, failure, special failure, critical failure, etc.).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly, it all loops back to the DM being dedicated to his players' fun. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8481725, member: 7032025"] That's my point, it is not described. You assume that it is, but there is no requirement for it, as per the standard loop. And I've explained that we have banished it from our games, it's not required and it interferes with what the other PCs should know of that is happening. Only the description of the action is required, not the desired outcome. The example given is "We’ll take the east door" without any outcome like "... to avoid / find the goblins". Just the action. Nope, not required, and actually with consequences. What I'm saying is that because the (desired) outcome does not have to be described, the DM just has to interpret the success failure of the action described, and he can ascribe any level of progress towards any outcome without being constrained by a specific intent. Exactly, it absolutely depends on what the table expects and their prefered playstyle, it's not mandated in any way by the rules, that's all. And that is fine if it's your preferred play style, and to be honest, I also do it now and then. There are also many cases, however, where I just trust the player, he he goes for something, it's because he has evaluated his chances as at least fair, and with the level of immersion that we usually have, it means that we are in agreement about the chances and possible consequences of success failure. I think that's what is important, you are right about the wording, I should have used something like "as supported as most other ways of doing it". You do realise that the DC is in itself absolutely arbitrary in itself ? Everything is arbitrary from the DM's perspective anyway. Also, although I appreciate what you are saying about giving the DC, the rules leave the DM absolutely free there and we prefer not giving the exact DC to avoid any sort of metagaming. At best, we'll give an indication (as per the DMG estimate), but nothing says that the DC is spot on the DMG precise value. That is fine as well, but since we are not giving away the DC anyway, and everything is arbitrary, my point is that giving a quality of result can be done in any sort of different fashions, all supported by the rules (whereas, in some systems for example Runequest, the quality of result is mandated by the dice roll, critical, special, normal, failure, special failure, critical failure, etc.). Exactly, it all loops back to the DM being dedicated to his players' fun. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Using social skills on other PCs
Top