D&D General Should players be aware of their own high and low rolls?

[GMforPowergamers]

Determining the result and narrating it is within the DM's role. Determining what the player can attempt to do in the first place is not.


Sometimes they do. But as I mention upthread, the DM has all the power here if they are the one who determines if the player is acting in bad faith and must be uninvited from future games. That's a strong incentive to defer to the DM, even if you disagree.

I am i will only respond by saying we must agree to disagree because you and I will just fill 10 pages then get the thread locked... We disagree, you think it is different, I think it is just more complex way of doing the same.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you think it's nonsense, then you must think the rules are nonsense. That's okay, of course.

I am i will only respond by saying we must agree to disagree because you and I will just fill 10 pages then get the thread locked... We disagree, you think it is different, I think it is just more complex way of doing the same.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In fact, this discussion about @iserith's pvp rules shed light on this whole debate. There seems to be this belief that if players are allowed to actually make choices they will always only choose the one that is best for them, and never roleplay suboptimal outcomes. And thus we must determine outcomes with dice and rulings, and force them to abide by those outcomes.

Which is a strange position to take for people who claim to be the superior roleplayers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In fact, this discussion about @iserith's pvp rules shed light on this whole debate. There seems to be this belief that if players are allowed to actually make choices they will always only choose the one that is best for them, and never roleplay suboptimal outcomes. And thus we must determine outcomes with dice and rulings, and force them to abide by those outcomes.

Which is a strange position to take for people who claim to be the superior roleplayers.

that is not my position at all and if you looked at any of my examples you would know that my players just do things even when they are not optimal... all the time

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sometimes they do. But as I mention upthread, the DM has all the power here if they are the one who determines if the player is acting in bad faith and must be uninvited from future games. That's a strong incentive to defer to the DM, even if you disagree.

People keep gaslighting me that I'm not seeing this stuff on here.

Quoting for posterity.

 

[iserith]

People keep gaslighting me that I'm not seeing this stuff on here.

Quoting for posterity.

What do you mean?

 

[Bill Zebub]

that is not my position at all and if you looked at any of my examples you would know that my players just do things even when they are not optimal... all the time

I don’t remember exactly which posters said what, but the sentiment is common.

But even you just assumed, a few posts ago, that if you let the target of pvp decide the outcome it is the same thing as not attacking at all.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What do you mean?

I think he meant posterity, but I still don’t know what he means.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don’t remember exactly which posters said what, but the sentiment is common.

But even you just assumed, a few posts ago, that if you let the target of pvp decide the outcome it is the same thing as not attacking at all.

nope... I said if you are taking the chance of success away and letting target (be it NPC orc or PC fighter) decide you make it against the grain and not worth doing... are there corner cases where it will still come up, sure. Most time players will just take it as an autofail and say not worth trying...

it is disincentivizing doing it so the player wont do it instead of just saying "I don't want this can we not do it"
same end result but with more steps.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think he meant posterity, but I still don’t know what he means.

he means (and I get this alot myself) people will say pages from now no one said that...