Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8279242" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Tomato, tomahto. If I rolled less than I could  have, the dice are indicating that I didn’t do as well as I could have. You’re free to rule that I can’t roll again, but it’s just factually incorrect to say it was my character’s best effort,Only if you as DM decide that it is. And that would be a decision I would take issue with.Obviously, that’s almost tautological. That isn’t just a rephrasing of the former statement though.You can’t just brush over that “if given long enough” bit like it isn’t extremely significant. Adventurers should rarely if ever have the luxury of unlimited time and no other external pressure to do something. But in the rare cases that they do, sure, they should -eventually- be able to do it.I figured you wouldn’t see it that way. Personally, I don’t see any benefit to doing it your way. Checks have DCs, obstacles in the game world don’t.Of course they’re not the same thing. Story progress is not the thing I’m concerned with. Whatever happens in play is the story. When I say it stalls the gameplay I mean it causes the pattern of play (DM describes environment -> players describe what they want to do -> DM describes the results, calling for a check to resolve uncertainty in the results if necessary -> repeat from step 1) to break down or come to a halt.I’m not talking about frustration, I’m talking about boredom. If my players regularly had to spend hours of real-life time just trying to think of novel ways to open a door, they would be fully justified in never wanting to participate in that activity again (I hesitate to say “play that game again” because thinking of ways to open the door is not playing a game by any reasonable definition of those words.)Well, sports are boring, so I’m not sure that analogy serves your argument well <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😜" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61c.png" title="Winking face with tongue    :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:" data-shortname=":stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />[USER=93670]@tetrasodium[/USER] suggested that rather than a meaningful consequence for failure being a prerequisite for a roll to be called for, a meaningful consequence for failure and for success should be required. I meant to say that I struggle to imagine a case where success has a meaningful consequence but failure doesn’t, but like I said, I mistyped and accidentally requested an example of the opposite. That’s my fault, sorry for the confusion.</blockquote>

Verification