Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6728920" data-attributes="member: 97077">And when you leave the result unclear, you invite that uncertainty and, in some cases, create an opportunity for &quot;metagaming&quot; that some choose to fix with secret rolls or via a social contract against &quot;metagaming.&quot;Not necessarily. The rules provide options for &quot;success at a cost&quot; when missing an attack roll.Just like the rules provide options for &quot;progress combined with a setback&quot; when it comes to failing an ability check.The fictional circumstances are the agreed-upon reality. The task resolution mechanic exists outside of that. You can't &quot;fudge&quot; reality. You can only describe it adequately or not.As well, it is possible to examine different approaches without assuming the people examining them are making some kind of statement about how it's wrong to play that way. It would all save us some time typing if we didn't have to constantly say &quot;It's my preference, therefore it can't be wrong!&quot; or &quot;This is just my analysis - play how you like!&quot; That is self-evident. The topic was about secret rolls by the DM on behalf of the players. I'm examining why DMs feel the need or desire to do this by taking a look under the hood at how they adjudicate. Those who are on the fence about it may decide that changing the way they adjudicate is preferable to the alternative (and beneficial in other ways, too).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6728920, member: 97077"] And when you leave the result unclear, you invite that uncertainty and, in some cases, create an opportunity for "metagaming" that some choose to fix with secret rolls or via a social contract against "metagaming." Not necessarily. The rules provide options for "success at a cost" when missing an attack roll. Just like the rules provide options for "progress combined with a setback" when it comes to failing an ability check. The fictional circumstances are the agreed-upon reality. The task resolution mechanic exists outside of that. You can't "fudge" reality. You can only describe it adequately or not. As well, it [I]is[/I] possible to examine different approaches without assuming the people examining them are making some kind of statement about how it's wrong to play that way. It would all save us some time typing if we didn't have to constantly say "It's my preference, therefore it can't be wrong!" or "This is just my analysis - play how you like!" That is self-evident. The topic was about secret rolls by the DM on behalf of the players. I'm examining why DMs feel the need or desire to do this by taking a look under the hood at how they adjudicate. Those who are on the fence about it may decide that changing the way they adjudicate is preferable to the alternative (and beneficial in other ways, too). [/QUOTE]

Verification