Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9050393" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Well, I would say she had to make a check rather than she was allowed to. Checks can fail, and failed checks have consequences, therefore making a check is something you should seek to avoid, unless you for some reason want your character to suffer. In the way I run the game, that is.Well, yeah. If the players say their characters do a thing (and that thing is actually possible for them to do), they do it. If the characters do a thing that would result in the trap being disarmed, and doesn’t involve any risk, then it it wouldn’t make sense to call for a check.I object to the framing as “convincing the DM because that suggests that the deciding factor is how well you’ve persuaded me. In actuality, the deciding factor is following the logic of the fiction.Thats valid. reason I don’t care for that style, personally, is it makes it feel like my choices don’t really matter. I succeed or fail by random dice rolls alone, and have no ability to devise strategies to mitigate that randomness.Is D&amp;D not a game of collaboratively creating narratives?What’s the difference? In both cases it sounds to me like navigating the challenge by engaging with the fiction, why does one work without needing to make a roll and the other not?Agreed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9050393, member: 6779196"] Well, I would say she [I]had to[/I] make a check rather than she was [I]allowed to.[/I] Checks can fail, and failed checks have consequences, therefore making a check is something you should seek to avoid, unless you for some reason want your character to suffer. In the way I run the game, that is. Well, yeah. If the players say their characters do a thing (and that thing is actually possible for them to do), they do it. If the characters do a thing that would result in the trap being disarmed, and doesn’t involve any risk, then it it wouldn’t make sense to call for a check. I object to the framing as “convincing the DM because that suggests that the deciding factor is how well you’ve persuaded me. In actuality, the deciding factor is following the logic of the fiction. Thats valid. reason I don’t care for that style, personally, is it makes it feel like my choices don’t really matter. I succeed or fail by random dice rolls alone, and have no ability to devise strategies to mitigate that randomness. Is D&D not a game of collaboratively creating narratives? What’s the difference? In both cases it sounds to me like navigating the challenge by engaging with the fiction, why does one work without needing to make a roll and the other not? Agreed. [/QUOTE]

Verification