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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What are your biggest immersion breakers, rules wise?
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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7834137" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>I agree. Some folks, who have similar adjudication styles to me, are pretty gung-ho about their interpretations being at least RAI if not RAW. Personally, I’m less sure how much clarity of intent the 5e devs had when designing the rules, but I’m really more interested in what practices produce the best results than in whether or not those practices are supported by the rules.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree. In my assessment, try to escape” and “try to break” are goals, not methods. I need a means by which the character tries to escape or break the manacles to properly adjudicate the action. When in doubt, “I try to <strong>_</strong> <em>by</em> <strong>_</strong>” is a good format for action declaration, though I’m not picky about phrasing as long as I can tell both what the player wants and the means the character is using to try and achieve it without having to make assumptions.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I disagree. DCs are quite often given for achieving results, without much consideration given to what methods are used to bring those results about, especially in published adventures. However, I will concede that setting DCs without thought to both the goal and the approach is bad DMing practice, whether it is intended or not. And if your assertion is that the rules as written for escaping and/or breaking manacles in 5e kinda suck, I do agree with that.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don’t agree that this is the “obvious interpretation” of what the devs wanted, but again, I don’t much care if it’s what the devs wanted or not. I think the way I handle it leads to better gameplay.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don’t think that “you don’t need to be an expert in order to have a reasonable chance of succeeding” is a critique of Bounded Accuracy. Bounded Accuracy is just a design principle of keeping the bonus and target number math relatively flat. There’s no reason that, in a Bounded Accuracy system, you can’t require a certain level of expertise for there to be a reasonable chance of success. For example, you can’t attempt to pick a lock if you aren’t proficient with thieves’ tools (or, technically you can, you’ll just fail without a check.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7834137, member: 6779196"] I agree. Some folks, who have similar adjudication styles to me, are pretty gung-ho about their interpretations being at least RAI if not RAW. Personally, I’m less sure how much clarity of intent the 5e devs had when designing the rules, but I’m really more interested in what practices produce the best results than in whether or not those practices are supported by the rules. I disagree. In my assessment, try to escape” and “try to break” are goals, not methods. I need a means by which the character tries to escape or break the manacles to properly adjudicate the action. When in doubt, “I try to [B]_[/B] [i]by[/i] [B]_[/B]” is a good format for action declaration, though I’m not picky about phrasing as long as I can tell both what the player wants and the means the character is using to try and achieve it without having to make assumptions. Again, I disagree. DCs are quite often given for achieving results, without much consideration given to what methods are used to bring those results about, especially in published adventures. However, I will concede that setting DCs without thought to both the goal and the approach is bad DMing practice, whether it is intended or not. And if your assertion is that the rules as written for escaping and/or breaking manacles in 5e kinda suck, I do agree with that. I don’t agree that this is the “obvious interpretation” of what the devs wanted, but again, I don’t much care if it’s what the devs wanted or not. I think the way I handle it leads to better gameplay. I don’t think that “you don’t need to be an expert in order to have a reasonable chance of succeeding” is a critique of Bounded Accuracy. Bounded Accuracy is just a design principle of keeping the bonus and target number math relatively flat. There’s no reason that, in a Bounded Accuracy system, you can’t require a certain level of expertise for there to be a reasonable chance of success. For example, you can’t attempt to pick a lock if you aren’t proficient with thieves’ tools (or, technically you can, you’ll just fail without a check.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What are your biggest immersion breakers, rules wise?
Top