Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9050071" data-attributes="member: 6801845">So either you trust your players or you don't. We agree on that.&nbsp; The point was raised that one of the reasons to have goal and approach is because it will remove opportunity from the players.&nbsp; If I trust my players, I don't need to remove opportunity.&nbsp; Therefore for me there is no reason to put a check in the &quot;reasons to use&quot; column.&nbsp; I've given my reasons upthread on why I don't like it, the only thing you seem bothered by is the trust issue.&nbsp; Having to describe how I check for traps would be annoying and frustrating to me.&nbsp; If I, or a player, wants to add some fluff that's fine.&nbsp; Change the outcome? Heck no.&nbsp; I would no more want to have to describe how I check for traps than I would give the actual incantation for casting Bless.&nbsp; In your example? Only getting a check because the described something successfully and then succeeding in disarming without a roll?&nbsp; Big Bozo no-no from me.&nbsp; Because as a DM I have tells.&nbsp; Someone who has known me and played with me will know my style.&nbsp; If Jo is playing a rogue, it should not matter if they are capable of coming up with a good description.&nbsp; The PC doing the action matters at the level of in-world resolution of uncertain actions, not the player.I think this whole &quot;getting or automatically passing a check because of player skill instead of PC skill&quot; is likely one of the biggest gulfs between our styles.&nbsp; I'm not sure I would want to play in a game where this happens, the player is playing &quot;Persuade the DM&quot; not playing D&amp;D.&nbsp; I first had people suggest things like this in 1E, I had the same answer back then.&nbsp; I don't let the fighter automatically hit because they can explain how they're swinging a sword, player can give an eloquent speech that brings tears to the eyes of everyone there and it's still going to be a persuasion roll.&nbsp; The DC might be modified by the content of their speech, but not by their thespian skills.&nbsp; NOTE: there is a big difference between climbing in a window thus avoiding the trapped door and describing how you're disabling the trap on the door.&nbsp; The former is bypassing an obstacle, the latter is IMHO playing &quot;convince the DM&quot;.Different strokes and all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 9050071, member: 6801845"] So either you trust your players or you don't. We agree on that. The point was raised that one of the reasons to have goal and approach is because it will remove opportunity from the players. If I trust my players, I don't [I]need[/I] to remove opportunity. Therefore for me there is no reason to put a check in the "reasons to use" column. I've given my reasons upthread on why I don't like it, the only thing you seem bothered by is the trust issue. Having to describe how I check for traps would be annoying and frustrating to me. If I, or a player, wants to add some fluff that's fine. Change the outcome? Heck no. I would no more want to have to describe how I check for traps than I would give the actual incantation for casting Bless. In your example? Only getting a check because the described something successfully and then succeeding in disarming without a roll? Big Bozo no-no from me. Because as a DM I have tells. Someone who has known me and played with me will know my style. If Jo is playing a rogue, it should not matter if they are capable of coming up with a good description. The PC doing the action matters at the level of in-world resolution of uncertain actions, not the player. I think this whole "getting or automatically passing a check because of player skill instead of PC skill" is likely one of the biggest gulfs between our styles. I'm not sure I would want to play in a game where this happens, the player is playing "Persuade the DM" not playing D&D. I first had people suggest things like this in 1E, I had the same answer back then. I don't let the fighter automatically hit because they can explain how they're swinging a sword, player can give an eloquent speech that brings tears to the eyes of everyone there and it's still going to be a persuasion roll. The DC might be modified by the content of their speech, but not by their thespian skills. NOTE: there is a big difference between climbing in a window thus avoiding the trapped door and describing how you're disabling the trap on the door. The former is bypassing an obstacle, the latter is IMHO playing "convince the DM". Different strokes and all. [/QUOTE]

Verification