Switch Theme:

D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

 Manchu wrote:
But I think that's irrelevant. The various instances of Basic D&D don't even contemplate a permissive RPG rule set. Just as a matter of history, this idea did not develop until the 2000s and does not seem to have been conscious (or at least very serious) design goal until the latter half of that decade. The paradigm of D&D has hugely shifted between 1974 and today. That shift is what makes this discussion possible. Trying to find the terms of this discussion, here in 2014, in publications from decades ago is foolish.

Show me in 4th ed where you are only allowed to do the things in the book. (Permissive rule set). It doesn't exist. In fact, the book says that you can do whatever you want.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 pretre wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
 streamdragon wrote:
Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.
S do I have Three Tiger Kick as an At Will power from now on?

That makes sense. The DM provided a ruling. You were allowed to do it. Just as your fighter in your basic game is allowed to sneak up on guards and cut their throats whenever he wants.
But the Fighter from my example of Basic is not allowed to do that whenever he wants. He is allowed to attempt it whenever he wants but how the DM rules on how to test it can change. This is different from 4E. If I have a power, I can use it (all other permissions being equal).

   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

 Manchu wrote:
 pretre wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
 streamdragon wrote:
Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.
S do I have Three Tiger Kick as an At Will power from now on?

That makes sense. The DM provided a ruling. You were allowed to do it. Just as your fighter in your basic game is allowed to sneak up on guards and cut their throats whenever he wants.
But the Fighter from my example of Basic is not allowed to do that whenever he wants. He is allowed to attempt it whenever he wants but how the DM rules on how to test it can change. This is different from 4E. If I have a power, I can use it (all other permissions being equal).

So Basic is a Permissive Rule Set: You only have permission to do what the DM allows you to do. Just like 4th ed or any other game with a DM.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 pretre wrote:
Show me in 4th ed where you are only allowed to do the things in the book.
Here's my last attempt to tell you this: The thing that you want me to say is not the same thing as what I am saying. If I don't reply to your posts ITT from now on, it is because you have not yet figured this out.

   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

 Manchu wrote:
 pretre wrote:
Show me in 4th ed where you are only allowed to do the things in the book.
Here's my last attempt to tell you this: The thing that you want me to say is not the same thing as what I am saying. If I don't reply to your posts ITT from now on, it is because you have not yet figured this out.

You've said that Basic is not a Permissive Ruleset and 4th is. And yet you can provide no proof of either statement. If that's not what you're saying, what are you saying? Because at least I (and I'm thinking others in the thread) are completely confused by what you're saying since you apparently are intending to say something that the words you are typing are not portraying.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 17:37:00


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Manchu wrote:
The structure or shape or whatever you want to call it of a rule system has implications for the way it is played. Just to give a simple example, a system that simulates something complex with very few rules naturally relies more on rulings while a system with very many rules has preemptively defined the space where rulings would otherwise happen.
 Manchu wrote:
 pretre wrote:
The reason you need rulings in Basic is because if you play Basic as written you can't do practically anything.
Yes, if you play Basic in the same way that you would play rule sets published decades later then Basic will seem awful. This exact thing happened to me. Then someone pointed out to me that Basic was not intended to be played like rule sets published decades later. It's just a simple thing, and I guess I was dumb for not realizing it, but the realization was a real enlightenment moment for me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 17:40:38


   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

 Manchu wrote:
The structure or shape or whatever you want to call it of a rule system has implications for the way it is played. Just to give a simple example, a system that simulates something complex with very few rules naturally relies more on rulings while a system with very many rules has preemptively defined the space where rulings would otherwise happen.

Just because a game relies more on rulings does not mean that a player can do more. A game with more rules and the ability to make rulings can do just as much; it just happens to have more thing defined that don't need rulings.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The long and short of it, however, is that you are stuck on the idea of Permissive Ruleset which doesn't seem to exist in any form in a D&D book. Don't believe me? Click on your name and check your previous posts. Count the number of times you refer to 4th as a permissive ruleset with no proof and contrast Basic as non-permissive.

As well, you continue to explain how things are more free in Basic by providing examples of Gameplay which we show you can easily be done in 4th (or any edition of D&D) because they all allow you the same freedom to make rulings (and in fact tell you that that is the DM's job).

If you're not trying to make the point that 4E is Permissive and Basic is not and that Basic has more freedom than 4E than I have no idea what you are trying to do because your posts have all been aimed in that direction.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/07/08 17:52:31


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Manchu wrote:
 streamdragon wrote:
Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.
S do I have Three Tiger Kick as an At Will power from now on?


Manchu wrote:
 pretre wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
 streamdragon wrote:
Taking what the player said he wants to do and deciding on a ruling that allows them to do it.
S do I have Three Tiger Kick as an At Will power from now on?

That makes sense. The DM provided a ruling. You were allowed to do it. Just as your fighter in your basic game is allowed to sneak up on guards and cut their throats whenever he wants.
But the Fighter from my example of Basic is not allowed to do that whenever he wants. He is allowed to attempt it whenever he wants but how the DM rules on how to test it can change. This is different from 4E. If I have a power, I can use it (all other permissions being equal).

How did I describe your "Three Tiger Kick"?

As an arbitrated basic attack.

Do you still have the ability to make a basic attack?

I am honestly not sure what point you are trying to make. I/we (as in the player who wanted to kick someone in the face and myself) did not create a new power. There is no card, no new power, nothing to pencil down. It was an arbitrated attack, no different than your 5e Cleric who went into the detailed description of their monk-ish background. I know you can understand this, so I am fairly confused on what exactly you are trying to prove or make me realize. The rogue wanting to Three Tiger Kick someone in the face would ask to do it again, I would probably allow. They could use their use of Three Tiger Kick to justify taking a Multi-Class(Monk) feat if they so desired. They could use it to justify retraining their character theme from _______ to "Monk Disciple" (I have no idea if that is a thing).

Put simply: There is no difference between the ruling made in your 5e version that allowed a Cleric to Three Tiger Kick and my 4e ruling to allow the Rogue to Three Tiger Kick. None. I get the feeling you are trying to point out some sort of innate difference between the two situations, there isn't. Both were rulings (to use your word) made by a GM to allow a character to Three Tiger Kick someone in the face.

Your attempt to differentiate between the attack and the stealth ruling is also baffling. A skill roll, or essentially stat roll without skill training, is no different than an attack roll. Roll die, add bonus, attempt to make target number. How is it any different if it's "Roll stealth" or "Roll Dexterity (Stealth)"? It isn't. It's the same thing, used the same way, with the same options. You seem to have created some difference in your head that a ruling in one edition is somehow permanent, whereas a ruling in another edition is malleable; there is no difference. Both are as malleable as the GM making the ruling.
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

 streamdragon wrote:
You seem to have created some difference in your head that a ruling in one edition is somehow permanent, whereas a ruling in another edition is malleable; there is no difference. Both are as malleable as the GM making the ruling.

A-men!

Now I have to argue vicariously through streamdragon. Can I PM you stuff to post in the thread so Manchu will respond to me again? I'd sock-puppet it but don't want to get baned.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 17:59:15


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





 pretre wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
The structure or shape or whatever you want to call it of a rule system has implications for the way it is played. Just to give a simple example, a system that simulates something complex with very few rules naturally relies more on rulings while a system with very many rules has preemptively defined the space where rulings would otherwise happen.

Just because a game relies more on rulings does not mean that a player can do more. A game with more rules and the ability to make rulings can do just as much; it just happens to have more thing defined that don't need rulings.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The long and short of it, however, is that you are stuck on the idea of Permissive Ruleset which doesn't seem to exist in any form in a D&D book. Don't believe me? Click on your name and check your previous posts. Count the number of times you refer to 4th as a permissive ruleset with no proof and contrast Basic as non-permissive.

As well, you continue to explain how things are more free in Basic by providing examples of Gameplay which we show you can easily be done in 4th (or any edition of D&D) because they all allow you the same freedom to make rulings (and in fact tell you that that is the DM's job).

If you're not trying to make the point that 4E is Permissive and Basic is not and that Basic has more freedom than 4E than I have no idea what you are trying to do because your posts have all been aimed in that direction.


I really have to agree with this, unless there's some arbitrary rule that says something, it pretty much is user defined in your own mind Manchu, which is not a legal, enforceable rule at the table.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I personally would say that, at least in DnD, and especially in a version that is as apparently rules heavy as 4E is/was, it is a "permissive ruleset" from the point of view that, if your character sheet specifically details an ability to do something, so long as the prerequisites are met, you have "permission" to do that thing/ability.

If you want to do something above and beyond what's on that sheet, you need DM permission.

Biggest one that comes to my mind was an encounter in a cave/tunnel system. Our party was effectively blocked, so our rogue says (half jokingly) that she was going to matrix/ninja run along the wall, do a side flip, and land directly behind the bad guy, giving my character (and hers) combat advantage.

She didn't count on our DM sayin, "OK, roll a Dex check to see if you do all that, on a DC 25 (honestly don't remember what he established the DC at, but it really didnt matter, because she rolled a 1, which put her prone, right infront of a second baddie)"

In my own example, the character wants to do something that is not specifically outlined on their character sheet (as in an At-will, Encounter, or Daily power, or other ability listed somewhere on the sheet), but the DM felt that the action would not break the game/encounter or whatever. Now, if a group of people were playing something like "Ghostbusters, the RPG" and wanted to "cross the streams" then the DM may have to rule against that, or place such a severe penalty/difficulty in order to dissuade the PCs from doing that action.
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
If you want to do something above and beyond what's on that sheet, you need DM permission.

Yep! The whole point of having a DM is to allow this. Something that doesn't have a DM only allows you to do the things in the rules (like say 40k or chess) whereas anything with a DM allows you to do anything in the rules AND anything the DM allows (like say any version of D&D).

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I personally would say that, at least in DnD, and especially in a version that is as apparently rules heavy as 4E is/was, it is a "permissive ruleset" from the point of view that, if your character sheet specifically details an ability to do something, so long as the prerequisites are met, you have "permission" to do that thing/ability.

If you want to do something above and beyond what's on that sheet, you need DM permission.


I don't understand this distinction, because it is equally true of ALL editions. In Basic, 2e, AD&D or 3.pf if my character has an ability, I have permission to use that ability. If I'm a wizard and have memorized Charm Person, I have permission to cast Charm Person. If I have not memorized it, I do not have permission. I would have serious issues with a GM who said "No, you can't cast Charm Person even though you have it memorized, because I said so and for no other reason!" This is no different than 4e powers, save that all classes get powers. If I am playing a fighter with the ability to Sunder (technically all characters have the ability I guess), I have permission to attempt to sunder things. This doesn't change. In Basic, 2e or AD&D, even if the actual system doesn't exist the way it does in 3.pf/4e, I still have the ability to attack an object.

Anything I don't explicitly have permission to try is covered by GM Ruling, and this too is no different in any edition from one to the next. Let's take a different example:

Lifting a gate. AD&D has this covered under Strength explicitly as a percentage chance of success. I have Permission to attempt to lift every single gate I come across, maybe bend a few bars. This is not a stat in 3.pf/4e/5e; nowhere on my character sheet does it detail my chance to Bend Bars/Lift Gates. I do not have explicit permission. It is, however, listed as an example use of Strength in all three of those editions with some editions even going so far as to suggest DCs/Target Numbers for you. In all examples of lifting gates, the GM has final ruling. In AD&D as a DM I might decide that the gate is particularly heavy, or perhaps old and especially stuck, and so impose a penalty to your percentage. In later editions using DCs, I may take the sample DC of a heavy iron portcullis and give it +2 for being old and rusted.

Neither edition is any more or less locked into specific numbers, or free of GM ruling than the other.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 18:31:14


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 streamdragon wrote:

I don't understand this distinction, because it is equally true of ALL editions. In Basic, 2e, AD&D or 3.pf if my character has an ability, I have permission to use that ability.


This basically was my distinction I guess what I was trying to say is that, at least in 4E, a lot more specific instances are covered in the BRBs (PHB, DMG, etc) than possibly were in previous editions (I honestly don't know, I've only read through the 4E stuff)
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

I think it is interesting that if you google 'permissive ruleset' there are no official definitions, just people using it in internet arguments.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

@steamdragon:

I'm just going to use 4E as an example because that is the edition we have been talking about. I am not saying the following is exclusive to 4E. At the very least, this is also true of 3E.

4E gives the player permission to do things via the mechanic of the (N)PC/monster and their various kinds of "actions." An "action" is a formal, abstract mechanic; that is, it primarily exists as a feature of playing the game. It is not necessarily tied to anything that gameplay simulates, if indeed the gameplay simulates anything. In many games (for example, chess) this is known as a "move." What you get to do with your "move" is defined by other permissions: the rook can do this, the pawn can do that. Similarly, 4E permits the player to use the PC's actions in certain ways. This is the fundamental premise of 4E. Absent superseding permissions, each player gets to do what they are allowed to do under the rules as a matter of right. It is therefore possible to cheat in 4E.

This is not the fundamental premise of Basic D&D To be clear, I am talking about the game published in 1977 and the games following from it, not 5E. I believe this also applies to AD&D; Alpharius can clarify here. Basic actually works the other way around from 4E. Instead of starting with formal, abstract mechanics, Basic game play begins with narrative description. (In chess terms, it's like a player saying "my queen tries to make three loops around your pawn.") Then a referee, the DM, figures out how to simulate this narrative with mechanics, which is called a ruling. The DM has some mechanics from book to use as guidelines. There are not really any "moves" (as described above) to speak of, at least not in the sense of having a predetermined menu of permitted "actions" available. The closest you can get to cheating in something like this is meta-gaming, the in-game use of out-of-game knowledge.

As I hope you can see the big difference here is between when the mechanics show up. In 4E, the mechanics are laid out before hand and playing the game is a matter of executing them. In Basic, it becomes clear that the mechanics you start with are not sufficient to cover everything that happens so the mechanics that actually get used are generated during the game play as rulings.

Now, despite claims to the contrary, I have posted ITT that rulings are possible in 4E. I have even explained that I used them myself when I ran 4E. But I do understand why players would object to rulings in 4E. Rulings are not a part of the fundamental premise of the game. They do not really contribute to the "beautiful tactical combat" that is 4E's major accomplishment. The ability to use rulings in 4E can validly be seen as an "escape hatch" to cover the relatively small space (at least concerning combat) not aleady covered by the rules.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/08 18:51:35


   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




Wow this discussion is hard to follow. Like I can't tell what half the people are talking about if they are talking about anything.

The idea of a permissive rule set is kind of a neat one. D&D next did have a ideal that they wanted to try. The idea was to have players do more things then was was on their character sheet. It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it. D&D next tried to brake out of this with ieas like bound accuracy and using attribute rolls over other kinds of rolls.
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

 Manchu wrote:
Instead of starting with formal, abstract mechanics, Basic game play begins with narrative description.

This is false. Basic starts with actions. (Actions, page 27 under combat. There are 5 actions provided for, including Morale checks, movement, missile fire, magic spells, melee). The beginning of the Basic book allows you to make rulings outside of those just as any edition of D&D does.

The closest you can get to cheating in something like this is meta-gaming, the in-game use of out-of-game knowledge.

Also false. You can misrepresent your current status (HP cheating or stat cheating), you can cheat roll, you can use items you don't have, you can even use powers you don't have (i.e. spells that you didn't memorize), etc so on. The same as you can in 4th ed. In fact, I can't think of a way to cheat in 4th that you couldn't in Basic.

As I hope you can see the big difference here is between when the mechanics show up. In 4E, the mechanics are laid out before hand and playing the game is a matter of executing them. In Basic, it becomes clear that the mechanics you start with are not sufficient to cover everything that happens so the mechanics that actually get used are generated during the game play as rulings.

The mechanics of 4th are not sufficient either. That's why the book specifically tells you that and tells you how to work around the points that are insufficient.

Basically, our disagreement is one of degree and not kind. Basic is the same as 4th just with less rules. They work the same: I.e. you use the rules when they apply and rule when they don't.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
nomotog wrote:
It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it.

Which is weird since now that I've looked back at Basic and AD&D, I am positive that every edition of D&D (Basic through 5th, including 4th) has specifically allowed you to do things not on your character sheet with DM permission. That is, in fact, a core part of EVERY edition of D&D.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 18:55:49


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

That's true, nomotog. In that sense, 5E was taking a cue from older editions where you did not have a predetermined menu of permitted options (whether or not you also could do other stuff).

   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

 Manchu wrote:
That's true, nomotog. In that sense, 5E was taking a cue from older editions where you did not have a predetermined menu of permitted options (whether or not you also could do other stuff).

Except even Basic did have a predetermined menu of permitted options... That, again, just like the ability to do anything, is the core of D&D. (Page 27 basic rulebook for predetermined menu of options. It's even bulleted.)

AD&D was actually much more loosy-goosy and would be a better example.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 19:03:02


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




 pretre wrote:

nomotog wrote:
It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it.

Which is weird since now that I've looked back at Basic and AD&D, I am positive that every edition of D&D (Basic through 5th, including 4th) has specifically allowed you to do things not on your character sheet with DM permission. That is, in fact, a core part of EVERY edition of D&D.


I can't speak for editions before 3ed. The thing was that you always could do things outside your sheet. Even without explicit permission. You just didn't do it because you knew if you moved outside the framework of the game it wouldn't work out for you. Try to use a skill that doesn't exist (or isn't on your sheet.), and your all of a sudden your making a check at a horrible disadvantage.
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

nomotog wrote:
 pretre wrote:

nomotog wrote:
It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it.

Which is weird since now that I've looked back at Basic and AD&D, I am positive that every edition of D&D (Basic through 5th, including 4th) has specifically allowed you to do things not on your character sheet with DM permission. That is, in fact, a core part of EVERY edition of D&D.


I can't speak for editions before 3ed. The thing was that you always could do things outside your sheet. Even without explicit permission. You just didn't do it because you knew if you moved outside the framework of the game it wouldn't work out for you. Try to use a skill that doesn't exist (or isn't on your sheet.), and your all of a sudden your making a check at a horrible disadvantage.

If you ask to do something reasonable, you should get a reasonable chance to succeed. If you try to do something unreasonable, you should have little chance to succeed. That again, is every edition.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




 pretre wrote:
nomotog wrote:
 pretre wrote:

nomotog wrote:
It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it.

Which is weird since now that I've looked back at Basic and AD&D, I am positive that every edition of D&D (Basic through 5th, including 4th) has specifically allowed you to do things not on your character sheet with DM permission. That is, in fact, a core part of EVERY edition of D&D.


I can't speak for editions before 3ed. The thing was that you always could do things outside your sheet. Even without explicit permission. You just didn't do it because you knew if you moved outside the framework of the game it wouldn't work out for you. Try to use a skill that doesn't exist (or isn't on your sheet.), and your all of a sudden your making a check at a horrible disadvantage.

If you ask to do something reasonable, you should get a reasonable chance to succeed. If you try to do something unreasonable, you should have little chance to succeed. That again, is every edition.


Well no. That is more of a DM trait. D&D doesn't 't really do a reasonable or not reasonable thing. It's more difficulty Vs ability.
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

nomotog wrote:
Well no. That is more of a DM trait. D&D doesn't 't really do a reasonable or not reasonable thing. It's more difficulty Vs ability.
Yes, anything that requires DM approval will be dependent on DM. Even difficulty vs ability is wholly within the DM's realm to determine. Many editions provide guidelines for that level of difficulty (4th included) but ultimately it has always been up to the DM.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






I can't wait to see what happens when the actual PHB comes out if just the Basic pdf creates all this discussion.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




 pretre wrote:
nomotog wrote:
Well no. That is more of a DM trait. D&D doesn't 't really do a reasonable or not reasonable thing. It's more difficulty Vs ability.
Yes, anything that requires DM approval will be dependent on DM. Even difficulty vs ability is wholly within the DM's realm to determine. Many editions provide guidelines for that level of difficulty (4th included) but ultimately it has always been up to the DM.


Well no again. Ability has been more or less inside the players domain. They are the ones who pick their feats and abilities. The player is the one who says their fighter has 18 str. The DM really gets little input into that. Normally*. Difficulty is more or less the domain of the DM though. You get some guidelines, but it's up to the DM to pick. (Edit: actually Dc aren't always inside of the DMs domain. 3ed had the skill DCs inside the players handbook after all.) Also the issue of DM approval is another contributing factor to the 4 corners problem. If it's explicitly on your sheet you don't need approval. Normally*. If it's not on your sheet, it's much more vague.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 19:41:29


 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

nomotog wrote:
Well no again. Ability has been more or less inside the players domain. They are the ones who pick their feats and abilities. The player is the one who says their fighter has 18 str. The DM really gets little input into that. Normally*. Difficulty is more or less the domain of the DM though. You get some guidelines, but it's up to the DM to pick. Also the issue of DM approval is another contributing factor to the 4 corners problem. If it's explicitly on your sheet you don't need approval. Normally*. If it's not on your sheet, it's much more vague.

Well, I said 'difficulty VS ability' but fair enough. I definitely see your point.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Ahtman wrote:
I can't wait to see what happens when the actual PHB comes out if just the Basic pdf creates all this discussion.
That's a really good point. We know that the PHB will contain more options but if it is more of the kind of options that are previewed in the Basic PDF then I don't think there will be any implication on the current versatility of 5E, i.e., that it can be played as a permissive rule set, a non-permissive rule set, or something in between. The real question is, what will feats be like?

   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

Now that we've talked about it, I don't think that there is a 'Permissive Ruleset' version of D&D*.

* Under the assumption that a permissive ruleset is a ruleset where you can only do things that you have been given specific permission to do by the rulebook(like Chess or 40k).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 19:46:02


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





nomotog wrote:
Wow this discussion is hard to follow. Like I can't tell what half the people are talking about if they are talking about anything.

The idea of a permissive rule set is kind of a neat one. D&D next did have a ideal that they wanted to try. The idea was to have players do more things then was was on their character sheet. It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it. D&D next tried to brake out of this with ieas like bound accuracy and using attribute rolls over other kinds of rolls.



I don't think this is true at all... Certainly, the players in the party would each look to their player sheets to determine what PC would be best suited to a task presented to them, but I don't think they were looking for what "could" be done.

For instance, the party comes across a locked door.... the Fighter in the party thinks that she's strong enough to break down the door (so that player checks her strength modifier), the Rogue chimes in that the door is locked, and they think they can pick the lock, thereby not alerting any potential enemies on the other side of the door (so he is looking for his Dex modifier), the Cleric believes that his deity will deem him a worthy candidate, and use divine intervention to open the door for the party (so checks their Cha, or Wis... I dunno). None of these characters have a specific ability that says "open door this way", rather the party sees a situation (a closed/locked door), and is deciding how to move beyond the situation.
   
 
Forum Index » Board Games, Roleplaying Games & Card Games
Go to: