D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[FrogReaver]

If "I cast fireball" cannot be part of an approach to harming an orc, then nothing really can be.

"I use my abilities to read others" as an approach for determining if an NPC can be trusted

I see no meaningful distinction between such statements. Surely ya'll always goal and approach people can see why this is an issue for us not always goal and approach people?

 

[Oofta]

So you would be good with "I use my abilities to read others" as an approach for determining if an NPC can be trusted?

Dude, obviously they're totally and completely different. For reasons. That have already been clearly explained.

 

[FrogReaver]

Dude, obviously they're totally and completely different. For reasons. That have already been clearly explained.

What reasons?

 

[Oofta]

What reasons?

Umm complex reasons. Like ... the DMG giving an example of asking for more detail on a diplomacy check even though they're nothing alike.

Apparently a DM might not be able to comprehend what a player wants with an insight check. Or something.

Last but not least the examples in the rules say so and never encourage a DM to do what makes sense for them and their group. Except where it does.

Because obviously anyone who allows a player to reference a game term is doing it wrong. Except they aren't. It's just not the way it's supposed to be done.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

 

[FrogReaver]

Umm complex reasons. Like ... the DMG giving an example of asking for more detail on a diplomacy check even though they're nothing alike.

Apparently a DM might not be able to comprehend what a player wants. Or something.

Last but not least the examples in the rules say so and never encourage a DM to do what makes sense for them and their group. Except where it does.

Because obviously anyone who allows a player to reference a game term is doi

non obvious sarcasm doesn't come across well online

 

[Campbell]

So I looked back over some of the relevant passages in the PHB and DMG and the things some people have been saying and I think I assumed people were saying a lot more than they were saying. The way the game lays it this stuff it tells you what happens at the table - not how it happens. There is nothing about how a player should decide what their character does or how the DM should decide what happens. I was assuming a strong link between a player's stated (or implicit) goal and what DM decides happens.

From my perspective this makes it broadly useless for actually talking about GM technique. Technique is a matter of how we do things. If we are not actually talking about our decision making process as GMs, what our actual priorities are in any given moment of play, then what are we actually talking about?

Given room for implicit goals it also basically describes every traditional game ever. This is basically The Golden Rule wrote a little differently.

I get that players calling for a given check is a thing that happens in play, including a lot of Fifth Edition play. It happens regularly in the game I am a player in. Still I have not seen a single text implying that is the way things are supposed to go down. Nearly every traditional game I have ever read says something to the effect of players should describe what they are doing and GMs should call for checks as appropriate.

 

[FrogReaver]

So I looked back over some of the relevant passages in the PHB and DMG and the things some people have been saying and I think I assumed people were saying a lot more than they were saying. The way the game lays it this stuff it tells you what happens at the table - not how it happens. There is nothing about how a player should decide what their character does or how the DM should decide what happens. I was assuming a strong link between a player's stated (or implicit) goal and what DM decides happens.

From my perspective this makes it broadly useless for actually talking about GM technique. Technique is a matter of how we do things. If we are not actually talking about our decision making process as GMs, what our actual priorities are in any given moment of play, then what are we actually talking about?

Given room for implicit goals it also basically describes every traditional game ever. This is basically The Golden Rule wrote a little differently.

I get that players calling for a given check is a thing that happens in play, including a lot of Fifth Edition play. It happens regularly in the game I am a player in. Still I have not seen a single text implying that is the way things are supposed to go down. Nearly every traditional game I have ever read says something to the effect of players should describe what they are doing and GMs should call for checks as appropriate.

I know this isn't the case but it's kind of like some believe players that ask the gm for a roll are trying to railroad him into giving them a roll when what's actually happening is the player expects that he is going to be given a roll in the situation due to past experiences and is just trying to be helpful and speed the game along

 

[Ovinomancer]

I see no meaningful distinction between such statements. Surely ya'll always goal and approach people can see why this is an issue for us not always goal and approach people?

It's this kind of disingenuous response that has me rarely responding to you. You can't actually tell a difference between a specific, well-codified action and a generic statement of vague action? Surely you don't expect me to assume you're just this dense. I mean, you've intentionally misspelled y'all since I pointed it out in some strange attempt to own me through looking ignorant. You should look up Ken White's Rule of Goats*.


*Not Grandma friendly.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's this kind of disingenuous response that has me rarely responding to you. You can't actually tell a difference between a specific, well-codified action and a generic statement of vague action? Surely you don't expect me to assume you're just this dense. I mean, you've intentionally misspelled y'all since I pointed it out in some strange attempt to own me through looking ignorant. You should look up Ken White's Rule of Goats*.


*Not Grandma friendly.

See the real problem is this near constant drone from you and others here that I'm either disingenuous or an idiot. That's the real issue in our exchanges.

 

[FrogReaver]

You should look up Ken White's Rule of Goats*.


*Not Grandma friendly.

By the way that's hilarious.