Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9050301" data-attributes="member: 6801845">I've never cared for &quot;good description needed in order to even have a chance&quot; or &quot;good description = success&quot;.&nbsp; If I have someone at my table that's a locksmith in real life, I'm sure they could tell me exactly how to pick a lock in excruciating detail.&nbsp; I simply don't see why it would matter if Joe Locksmith is describing how they do it versus No Clue How a Lock Even Works Ned describes it.&nbsp; To me, it's all fluff.I have no problem with fluff.&nbsp; It's part of the fun. But it will never change the outcome of anything in the game if I'm DM. This style is also nothing new, it's been something some people have done since the inception of the game.&nbsp; To me, it's not using any rules of the game hence if descriptions give you a free pass it's not playing the game.&nbsp; It's testing player skill at being convincing, not testing the skills of the character.&nbsp; I agree with the protest in the example - I'm not a rogue, I'm not trained in finding or disabling traps, why am I expected to describe how I find a trap when the bard is not expected to actually play an instrument or sing?Last, but not least, if you do this on a regular basis it would get repetitious.&nbsp; If someone has played with the DM before and seen what descriptions have worked for other rogues in other campaigns, they're just going to parrot what someone else said because they know it works.If it works for you and your group, great.&nbsp; It's a valid way of having fun for some people.&nbsp; It just doesn't work for me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 9050301, member: 6801845"] I've never cared for "good description needed in order to even have a chance" or "good description = success". If I have someone at my table that's a locksmith in real life, I'm sure they could tell me exactly how to pick a lock in excruciating detail. I simply don't see why it would matter if Joe Locksmith is describing how they do it versus No Clue How a Lock Even Works Ned describes it. To me, it's all fluff. I have no problem with fluff. It's part of the fun. But it will never change the outcome of anything in the game if I'm DM. This style is also nothing new, it's been something some people have done since the inception of the game. To me, it's not using any rules of the game hence if descriptions give you a free pass it's not playing the game. It's testing player skill at being convincing, not testing the skills of the character. I agree with the protest in the example - I'm not a rogue, I'm not trained in finding or disabling traps, why am I expected to describe how I find a trap when the bard is not expected to actually play an instrument or sing? Last, but not least, if you do this on a regular basis it would get repetitious. If someone has played with the DM before and seen what descriptions have worked for other rogues in other campaigns, they're just going to parrot what someone else said because they know it works. If it works for you and your group, great. It's a valid way of having fun for some people. It just doesn't work for me. [/QUOTE]

Verification