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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
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="Gradine" data-source="post: 7496703" data-attributes="member: 57112"><p>Well yes, that is essentially a "how to play"... basically any role-playing game, really. Except maybe the really experimental ones, I guess. Of course, while it does not explicitly say to call for a roll, it also doesn't explicitly say <em>not to</em>, which seems to be the contention. I'd say it's ideal, especially with ideal players, but there have been times, many times even, where I've felt it necessary to at least prod a player into declaring an action, if not actually saying "why don't you make a History check to see if you know more about it?"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't know if it's a style difference or difference between one-shots and long-running campaigns, or just a difference in players, such is the nature of anecdotal evidence. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think that's the significant difference and the source of the misunderstanding then. Part of it is the awkward way in which D&D handles non-active skills. Part of it is a style difference, and in the lack of appreciating (or simply just not liking) passive skill checks, and the way nobody at WotC figured that that might be a good mechanic for knowledge-type skills also. Especially since, in many cases, ability checks that are usually active (particularly in the case of tools, but others as well) might call for a passive check related to knowledge of the craft/field. I personally don't like withholding information that characters should know (or at least have a chance to know) but their players aren't able to make the connections on their character sheets.</p><p></p><p>But there's a pretty big difference between calling for a roll that is essentially passive and declaring a player's action for them, which I think most of us can agree is far from ideal, at best.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You see, to me it would make much more sense if it were more of a principle than a quibble with how the rules are presented in one specific game. The former is all about personal preference and playstyle, while the latter just seems... pedantic. But then I guess that too can be part of a personal preference.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 7496703, member: 57112"] Well yes, that is essentially a "how to play"... basically any role-playing game, really. Except maybe the really experimental ones, I guess. Of course, while it does not explicitly say to call for a roll, it also doesn't explicitly say [I]not to[/I], which seems to be the contention. I'd say it's ideal, especially with ideal players, but there have been times, many times even, where I've felt it necessary to at least prod a player into declaring an action, if not actually saying "why don't you make a History check to see if you know more about it?" I don't know if it's a style difference or difference between one-shots and long-running campaigns, or just a difference in players, such is the nature of anecdotal evidence. I think that's the significant difference and the source of the misunderstanding then. Part of it is the awkward way in which D&D handles non-active skills. Part of it is a style difference, and in the lack of appreciating (or simply just not liking) passive skill checks, and the way nobody at WotC figured that that might be a good mechanic for knowledge-type skills also. Especially since, in many cases, ability checks that are usually active (particularly in the case of tools, but others as well) might call for a passive check related to knowledge of the craft/field. I personally don't like withholding information that characters should know (or at least have a chance to know) but their players aren't able to make the connections on their character sheets. But there's a pretty big difference between calling for a roll that is essentially passive and declaring a player's action for them, which I think most of us can agree is far from ideal, at best. You see, to me it would make much more sense if it were more of a principle than a quibble with how the rules are presented in one specific game. The former is all about personal preference and playstyle, while the latter just seems... pedantic. But then I guess that too can be part of a personal preference. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
Top