Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Benji" data-source="post: 7758850" data-attributes="member: 6793743">In this, you've cleared up the last bit of my understanding on your viewpoint. I can now see not only see how you run a game but also why you do it that way. It's been a really interesting discussion and while it might not change the way I choose to DM, it has totally justified your standpoint and meant my opinion of your opinions will be regarded more highly in the future so thank you for taking the time to clarify. By active check I just meant really 'actually rolling a dice and therefore yielding one of twenty results that lead to a rules as written success/fail binary' rather than passives&nbsp; 'cosulting a static unchanging number that provides one result that leads to a rules as written success/fail binary' but yes, I agree,there is no such term. What I was really sticking to is that PG179 discussion of the skill check and wondering how you'd resolve that 'hearing creatures sneaking through a wood' because before the last few points you never gave an example of actually making a perception roll in an ambush situation but now I've seen in example how you draw those differentials with a little more supposed context, I can get behind your way of playing it. Absolutely it was taken as such, I don't feel patronised. It's often important to over-explain to avoid misinterpretation, so I hold no malice. I took this whole thing as nothing more than an exchange of ideas among equals, thank you for your postive candor.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Benji, post: 7758850, member: 6793743"] In this, you've cleared up the last bit of my understanding on your viewpoint. I can now see not only see how you run a game but also why you do it that way. It's been a really interesting discussion and while it might not change the way I choose to DM, it has totally justified your standpoint and meant my opinion of your opinions will be regarded more highly in the future so thank you for taking the time to clarify. By active check I just meant really 'actually rolling a dice and therefore yielding one of twenty results that lead to a rules as written success/fail binary' rather than passives 'cosulting a static unchanging number that provides one result that leads to a rules as written success/fail binary' but yes, I agree,there is no such term. What I was really sticking to is that PG179 discussion of the skill check and wondering how you'd resolve that 'hearing creatures sneaking through a wood' because before the last few points you never gave an example of actually making a perception roll in an ambush situation but now I've seen in example how you draw those differentials with a little more supposed context, I can get behind your way of playing it. Absolutely it was taken as such, I don't feel patronised. It's often important to over-explain to avoid misinterpretation, so I hold no malice. I took this whole thing as nothing more than an exchange of ideas among equals, thank you for your postive candor. [/QUOTE]

Verification