Recent content by MrBeens304

I don't really understand your point of view. On one hand you are saying that "gamist" type games are "I would hardly call them role playing games though", but also "Father Generic and Fy Tor go into the dungeon, kill stuff and go back to town, all without a single word of anything approaching...

Maybe you have someone on ignore, maybe you missed posts in this insanely long thread, but as per Hawkeye's point at the top of the post you replied to, the tangent about relating to real world scenarios was in direct response to OTHER PEOPLE who they are replying to explicitly talking about...

It's an option but I don't think it's a "should" as an absolute - many RPG systems has locking picking as a "you can't attempt this again until X happens, it is beyond your current ability". If you could just keep rerolling until you succeed with no consequence to failing why call for a roll in...

Given that's how you add in contextualisation for a player learning fireball, do you do that for every new spell the player learns? What if the new spell shares no common elements from any of the player's existing lineup? You state that "mechanics like that have to have lore attached to them...

It is however very easy to interpret things as "attacks" on things when many people in this thread use absolute statements like "That way of playing is just fundamentally unsound" or "D&D just doesn't support this kind of play" or "You are doing it wrong", or "person A said they like X, but...

So all of this ridiculous back and forth over "consequences" of lock opening is just down to how granular you consider actions need to be. So in your world, using your car door example, opening a safe would be something like this: Player: I attempt to pick the lock of the safe DM: You succeed...