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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Worlds of Design: Always Tell Me the Odds
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="clearstream" data-source="post: 8000284" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>I mean that it pays out better. There is no risk. A bonus without any penalties, for example.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This seems to quibble definitions, which isn't what we are about here. Speaking to your earlier example, fair would be where any penalty is balanced by gains in proportion. The expectation over time is undifferentiated for using chandeliers.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Were it the only option available to players then it would be railroading, but where do we say that? In any circumstance there are a number of - let's call them - <strong>offers</strong> that a DM expresses to players or will express if asked. So players have before them an array of <em>offers</em>. The least number in your example was three: use the chandelier, use a normal attack action, do nothing. It's up to them which offer they avail themselves of. Remember though that the rational player you are advocating for must always accept the best offer: if that is chandelier, then it is <em>always </em>chandelier.</p><p></p><p>There's no reason why chandelier should be more or equally efficient to a normal attack. I think there are good reasons it should not be (else, if it is mechanically superior, and efficiency is the player's concern, then it should always be used). What I am saying is that players should not be focused on efficiency, and your concern overlooks the flipside of the OP's observations. The players will get multiple attempts. This won't be the last chandelier they ever see (well, unless it is literally the last chandelier they ever see... that can happen!) It might usually be a bad idea to chandelier, but sometimes circumstances demand risks be taken: the other characters are all down, one solid hit will drop the BBEG, one more round will see our heroine disintegrated.</p><p></p><p>Failing this time sets up next time to be that much more exciting. I think many DMs overlook this, but ask yourself a super-simple question: is a game more fun when players <em>always</em> succeed? No chance of failure? No real risks? No losses?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Are we are in a world where players must have certainty over outcome? Notionally, skill use is indefinitely repeatable and spell use is not. One consequence of 5e RAW at many tables is that spells are readily replenished. The issue there is not risks, it is that an intended cost turns out not to be a cost.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8000284, member: 71699"] I mean that it pays out better. There is no risk. A bonus without any penalties, for example. This seems to quibble definitions, which isn't what we are about here. Speaking to your earlier example, fair would be where any penalty is balanced by gains in proportion. The expectation over time is undifferentiated for using chandeliers. Were it the only option available to players then it would be railroading, but where do we say that? In any circumstance there are a number of - let's call them - [B]offers[/B] that a DM expresses to players or will express if asked. So players have before them an array of [I]offers[/I]. The least number in your example was three: use the chandelier, use a normal attack action, do nothing. It's up to them which offer they avail themselves of. Remember though that the rational player you are advocating for must always accept the best offer: if that is chandelier, then it is [I]always [/I]chandelier. There's no reason why chandelier should be more or equally efficient to a normal attack. I think there are good reasons it should not be (else, if it is mechanically superior, and efficiency is the player's concern, then it should always be used). What I am saying is that players should not be focused on efficiency, and your concern overlooks the flipside of the OP's observations. The players will get multiple attempts. This won't be the last chandelier they ever see (well, unless it is literally the last chandelier they ever see... that can happen!) It might usually be a bad idea to chandelier, but sometimes circumstances demand risks be taken: the other characters are all down, one solid hit will drop the BBEG, one more round will see our heroine disintegrated. Failing this time sets up next time to be that much more exciting. I think many DMs overlook this, but ask yourself a super-simple question: is a game more fun when players [I]always[/I] succeed? No chance of failure? No real risks? No losses? Are we are in a world where players must have certainty over outcome? Notionally, skill use is indefinitely repeatable and spell use is not. One consequence of 5e RAW at many tables is that spells are readily replenished. The issue there is not risks, it is that an intended cost turns out not to be a cost. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Worlds of Design: Always Tell Me the Odds
Top