Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6549818" data-attributes="member: 97077">It seems that wherever possible, you'd prefer to take the DM's decision-making out of the decision. If you could add more rules to make the outcome of a social interaction less reliant on the DM's judgment, you would. Is that a correct assessment?Outside of a player potentially never reading it, I don't see why the position of a rule in the book should matter as to its relevance. As was previously agreed, discussing it before play and setting expectations goes without saying (although, here I am saying it again).But here's another issue: I don't think the rules in D&amp;D are meant to be followed. The rules are meant to serve us, not for us to follow them. They come into play when we need them to resolve uncertainty and there is only one person at the table that can invoke a mechanic at all - the DM. If the DM decides the player is not going to make an attack roll because the DM knows the character is going to automatically hit or miss given the circumstances, then that's what happens. The player describes what he or she wants to do; the DM narrates the result of the adventurer's action. Sometimes that involves dice and rules at the DM's discretion. With that in mind, I struggle to see a problem with &quot;Success at a Cost.&quot; It's no more or less reliant upon the DM's call than anything else.Let's flip it around as per my edit above: What if this was a social interaction with life and death on the line? How would you feel about such a situation knowing that there aren't as many rules to govern it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6549818, member: 97077"] It seems that wherever possible, you'd prefer to take the DM's decision-making out of the decision. If you could add more rules to make the outcome of a social interaction less reliant on the DM's judgment, you would. Is that a correct assessment? Outside of a player potentially never reading it, I don't see why the position of a rule in the book should matter as to its relevance. As was previously agreed, discussing it before play and setting expectations goes without saying (although, here I am saying it again). But here's another issue: I don't think the rules in D&D are meant to be followed. [I]The rules[/I] are meant to serve [I]us[/I], not for [I]us [/I]to follow [I]them[/I]. They come into play when we need them to resolve uncertainty and there is only one person at the table that can invoke a mechanic at all - the DM. If the DM decides the player is not going to make an attack roll because the DM knows the character is going to automatically hit or miss given the circumstances, then that's what happens. The player describes what he or she wants to do; the DM narrates the result of the adventurer's action. [I]Sometimes[/I] that involves dice and rules at the DM's discretion. With that in mind, I struggle to see a problem with "Success at a Cost." It's no more or less reliant upon the DM's call than anything else. Let's flip it around as per my edit above: What if this was a social interaction with life and death on the line? How would you feel about such a situation knowing that there aren't as many rules to govern it? [/QUOTE]

Verification