Search results

You'd be surprised by how much of this I am on board with, but these are session zero or game rule preferences. The conversation was about players or GMs coming up with plausible justifications for uses of abilities.

You could just compound probabilities i.e. you need to roll a 10 on a d10 six times in a row

Such as?

Is that what you're rolling to resolve?

If the only difference is that I accept things that you do not, then yes it does mean lower.

Is the implication meant to be that, essentially, me and my group have lower standards about what's plausible or acceptable?

The challenge is that myself and I expect hawkeye can often come up with plausible, appropriate reasons.

That's a good one. I was also thinking a lot of people (possibly all people) are heavily swayed by cultural and familial pressures and their own perception of how they fit in with (or rebel against) them. 'I'm a good son and this is what my duty is'. 'I'm ultimately selfish and I deserve the...

I think lots of people actually do do this

Oofta good sir I have never agreed with you more

I thought they were one of the best bits of the 2014 PHB! Ah well

Oofta had said previously that this is a conversation about D&D, and D&D doesn't have such 'tokens'.

So no taking 10, inspiration, 2014 background traits, Lucky feat, etc? I respect the opposition to such mechanics, even if I don't share it. But they are baked in to 5e. You can take them out, of course, but they are in the printed books. They aren't something being injected into the game by...

OK. I didn't say forcing. But in not incentivising it, aren't you getting less of it?

So aren't you completely disincentivising players from providing that charismatic delivery?

Oofta, do I understand you to be saying that when you adjudicate a persuasion check, the delivery of the player doesn't affect the chances of success? It's still a skill check using the character's modifiers. If the player's delivery is particularly impassioned or effective does that grant a...

I'm not sure what is really meant by a game token here. If you mean something beyond the charisma/persuade modifier then 5e already has a bunch of those - bardic inspiration, Lucky feat, background traits, inspiration, various spells, etc.

Consuming plastic breaks my verisimilitude as they wouldn't have had access to it back then.

OK, noted, although the example they used was a (hypothetical) dodge effect that mirrored the way that Lucky etc work in 5e.

All of this is an argument not to have Fortune in the Middle type effects in your game. This is a perfectly valid preference. There aren't a huge amount of them in 5e, and I imagine they can all be removed or altered fairly easily. However, as printed, 2014 5e (and I assume 2024 5e) does...