Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="uzirath" data-source="post: 7875640" data-attributes="member: 8495">I'm not sure this follows. Most players I know love it when the DM "tests" their characters. Missing checks is more fun because it creates more challenges. Yes, we need enough shared vision that we understand the difference between easy and difficult tasks, but if I go for something difficult and fail, I don't really care if the DM was following RAW to the letter or if they were following their gut. All I care about is that I fell in the pit or failed to pick the lock and I'm entirely empowered to continue trying to do cool stuff in the face of crazy (and awesome) threats.Yes. The key is that the players and DM should have a sense of what types of adjectives go with what sorts of challenges. If the DM describes a wall with numerous cracks and handholds, the player might be justifiably miffed if it turned out to be a DC 30 climb. (Of course, I would love it if there were an in-game explanation: illusionary cracks! Oil of slipperiness oozing from the crevices! The wall is actually the skin of a giant eel of uncatchableness.)But, ultimately, it's not an adversarial game. I trust the DMs I play with to have a vision that makes sense to them and the game works best if I, as a player, make an effort to adapt my vision to theirs.As to the OP, I haven't played at top tier 5e yet, but my own preferred fantasies don't cast "peasants" as helpless sops. I'm ok with non-heroic folks occasionally getting lucky. I like a world where my hero shouldn't just ignore a mob of angry villagers with pitchforks.</blockquote>

Verification