Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8244479" data-attributes="member: 6696971">The first paragraph ( (a) - (d) aspect) and the downstream consequences of my above post is relevant here:When 5e initially came out, I had a hugely prolific and revealing (as to the dizzying application of the (a) - (d) matrix above by GMs on a case by case basis...which led to the absolute absence of mediation consensus on pretty much every scenario we talked about...which tells you there wasn't a &quot;inferable by first principles&quot; or intuitive thing happening under the hood) post entitled DC 30 or DC 35?&nbsp; I think a lot of people here engaged with that.&nbsp; It was enormously instructive.&nbsp; Unfortunately, the forum ate it.And it wasn't just the all over the map collage of (a) - (d) matrix deployment above as the process to arrive at DCs...but it was the significant discrepancy in DC handling period (when you consider stepping up or stepping back a DC creates a 25 % spread on action resolution results!)!The saving grace that people will rely upon is the accretion of data over the course of years of play under a GM.&nbsp; This will help to normalize the process of DC adjudication and the output of that adjudication.&nbsp; But it will never ensure it and outright remove the incidence of action resolution events that feel &quot;Deprotagonizing.&quot;&nbsp; Going from 5 times per session out of 50 moments of action resolution is only a 10 % incidence of feeling/being &quot;Deprotagonized.&quot;&nbsp; Reducing that to only 1 per session is a dramatic improvement.&nbsp; But 1 is not nothing and due to the way human's catalogue &quot;losses&quot; vs &quot;wins&quot;, even that 1 incidence will have a disproportionate impact cognitively and emotionally on the player involved.Its a greater than Herculean effort to reduce those incidences to 0...I'm not sure its possible.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8244479, member: 6696971"] The first paragraph ( (a) - (d) aspect) and the downstream consequences of my above post is relevant here: When 5e initially came out, I had a hugely prolific and revealing (as to the dizzying application of the (a) - (d) matrix above by GMs on a case by case basis...which led to the absolute absence of mediation consensus on pretty much every scenario we talked about...which tells you there wasn't a "inferable by first principles" or intuitive thing happening under the hood) post entitled DC 30 or DC 35? I think a lot of people here engaged with that. It was enormously instructive. Unfortunately, the forum ate it. And it wasn't just the all over the map collage of (a) - (d) matrix deployment above as the process to arrive at DCs...but it was the significant discrepancy in DC handling period (when you consider stepping up or stepping back a DC creates a 25 % spread on action resolution results!)! The saving grace that people will rely upon is the accretion of data over the course of years of play under a GM. This will help to normalize the process of DC adjudication and the output of that adjudication. But it will never ensure it and outright remove the incidence of action resolution events that feel "Deprotagonizing." Going from 5 times per session out of 50 moments of action resolution is only a 10 % incidence of feeling/being "Deprotagonized." Reducing that to only 1 per session is a dramatic improvement. But 1 is not nothing and due to the way human's catalogue "losses" vs "wins", even that 1 incidence will have a disproportionate impact cognitively and emotionally on the player involved. Its a greater than Herculean effort to reduce those incidences to 0...I'm not sure its possible. [/QUOTE]

Verification