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
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
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="Hussar" data-source="post: 5997379" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>While I totally agree with you, I think the difference is, "associated" mechanics are ones which pre-define the world in such a way that the players at the table are given no choice. Take 3e lock picking as an example. </p><p></p><p> In 3e lock picking, you must use some form of tool to pick a lock. That's hard wired right into the mechanics. If you do not have something you can use as a tool (even as an improvised tool) you may not pick a lock. Period. </p><p></p><p>Now, how this applies to non-pickable locks like a chinese puzzle box or a combination lock, the rules are silent on, but, that's a nit pick and it's pretty reasonable to presume that most DM's are not going to tell players they cannot open a combination lock because they don't have picks. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p>However, the reverse is also true. The players can never try to open a lock unless they satisfy the requirements of the mechanic. I've given the example of a "Fonzie Bump" sort of maneuver my theif character tried in 4e, simply because it was funny and cool and totally fit with the character. The table accepted it and it was a good moment. </p><p></p><p>But that only becomes possible because 4e skills are not specifically associated. You use the Thievery skill to open a lock in 4e and the only thing the rules tell you is that you open the lock, they don't say how. Makes sense, 4e isn't really concerned with process sim. How is up to the players at the table.</p><p></p><p>So, yeah, I agree that the reality of the game world is defined by the players, I think there is a certain number of gamers for whom the game world is defined primarily by the mechanics. What sort of spins my wheels is that when confronted with the myriad of contradictions this creates in the game world, I'm told that because it's associated, we can just ignore those contradictions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5997379, member: 22779"] While I totally agree with you, I think the difference is, "associated" mechanics are ones which pre-define the world in such a way that the players at the table are given no choice. Take 3e lock picking as an example. In 3e lock picking, you must use some form of tool to pick a lock. That's hard wired right into the mechanics. If you do not have something you can use as a tool (even as an improvised tool) you may not pick a lock. Period. Now, how this applies to non-pickable locks like a chinese puzzle box or a combination lock, the rules are silent on, but, that's a nit pick and it's pretty reasonable to presume that most DM's are not going to tell players they cannot open a combination lock because they don't have picks. :D However, the reverse is also true. The players can never try to open a lock unless they satisfy the requirements of the mechanic. I've given the example of a "Fonzie Bump" sort of maneuver my theif character tried in 4e, simply because it was funny and cool and totally fit with the character. The table accepted it and it was a good moment. But that only becomes possible because 4e skills are not specifically associated. You use the Thievery skill to open a lock in 4e and the only thing the rules tell you is that you open the lock, they don't say how. Makes sense, 4e isn't really concerned with process sim. How is up to the players at the table. So, yeah, I agree that the reality of the game world is defined by the players, I think there is a certain number of gamers for whom the game world is defined primarily by the mechanics. What sort of spins my wheels is that when confronted with the myriad of contradictions this creates in the game world, I'm told that because it's associated, we can just ignore those contradictions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top