Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8279259" data-attributes="member: 29398">Look at it another way: instead of having you roll a dozen times this just bundles all those rolls into one.&nbsp; And yes, very intentionally, this in general reduces the odds of success.&nbsp; I'm quite happy with that.The game decides this, not me.&nbsp; Or am I unusual in saying that rolls once made are binding?Well, yes I can, in that when I call for a roll when there is or seems to be no pressure I'm assuming they'll take however long they like before they get bored; and the roll represents the sum best effort during all that.Thus taking away from the PCs the option of giving up after 15 minutes of trying and deciding to look for plan B.And what sets those check DCs?&nbsp; That's right, the obstacle itself.The setting is constant and consistent, and the mechanics (in this case, the DCs) reflect that.&nbsp; The conditions, PCs, etc. are variable, and the roll modifiers reflect that.&nbsp; Seems simple enough; and gives the players a more grounded setting to work with.Not at all.&nbsp; The pattern of play doesn't stop: the players describe what they want to try (not do, but try - a very big difference wich rulebook authors always seem to miss) -&gt; [maybe there's a check or other mechanical intervention, if needed] -&gt; the DM describes the results and-or what happens -&gt; repeat from start.The only difference in this situation is that for a while the DM's descriptions might consist of &quot;No change, nothing happens&quot;.&nbsp; This does not break the loop.I'm guessing you don't like puzzles or riddles in the game either, then?Ah.&nbsp; That's in fact the most commonly seen of the four possibilities and is exactly what we're talking about above with the door: failure means no change, success means the PCs gain entry to whatever lies beyond (which, situationally dependent, may or may not be all that meaningful right away...).No worries. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8279259, member: 29398"] Look at it another way: instead of having you roll a dozen times this just bundles all those rolls into one. And yes, very intentionally, this in general reduces the odds of success. I'm quite happy with that. The game decides this, not me. Or am I unusual in saying that rolls once made are binding? Well, yes I can, in that when I call for a roll when there is or seems to be no pressure I'm assuming they'll take however long they like before they get bored; and the roll represents the sum best effort during all that. Thus taking away from the PCs the option of giving up after 15 minutes of trying and deciding to look for plan B. And what sets those check DCs? That's right, the obstacle itself. The setting is constant and consistent, and the mechanics (in this case, the DCs) reflect that. The conditions, PCs, etc. are variable, and the roll modifiers reflect that. Seems simple enough; and gives the players a more grounded setting to work with. Not at all. [I]The pattern of play doesn't stop[/I]: the players describe what they want to try (not do, but try - a very big difference wich rulebook authors always seem to miss) -> [maybe there's a check or other mechanical intervention, if needed] -> the DM describes the results and-or what happens -> repeat from start. The only difference in this situation is that for a while the DM's descriptions might consist of "No change, nothing happens". This does not break the loop. I'm guessing you don't like puzzles or riddles in the game either, then? Ah. That's in fact the most commonly seen of the four possibilities and is exactly what we're talking about above with the door: failure means no change, success means the PCs gain entry to whatever lies beyond (which, situationally dependent, may or may not be all that meaningful right away...). No worries. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification