Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8279562" data-attributes="member: 6779196">If every roll has a consequence for failure (as it should), bundling all the rolls into one makes the game easier because you have fewer opportunities to suffer those consequences.That’s not what you said. You said it’s binding until and unless something materially changes in the fiction.It isn’t up to you when a PC gets bored, or that they stop trying once they do. If I as a player decide my character just loves trying to do something and keeps it up until they succeed, or that they power through the boredom because they’re that committed to getting it done, that’s my right as a player to decide. And if there’s no time limit or other source of external pressure, then there shouldn’t be anything stopping my character from doing so if that’s what I want them to do.The player can decide to do that if they want to. I’ve never seen a player choose to do so, but they can.Wrong. The obstacle and the approach to solving it both play a role in that determination.I agree that the setting should be constant and consistent so the players can have a grounded understanding of the world to work from. I just don’t see any sense in not rolling the modifiers in with the setting of the DC. Doing so makes the math easier for  both the DM and the players so the focus can be on the fiction more than the mechanics.The possibility of failure is already accounted for in saying “what they want to do” rather than “what they do.” But whatever, if you prefer this phrasing, fine.Players getting stuck and spending hours brainstorming what to do is not a part of that loop, so whatever you were doing for a whole session trying to get that door open, it wasn’t gameplay.I love them.Ah, good point. Yeah, in that case I adamantly maintain that a roll should not be called for if there isn’t a consequence for failure.In my experience, doing things like this to curtail “metagaming” has only negative effects on gameplayRight, but that isn’t what [USER=12377]@77IM[/USER] was referring to, which is who I was responding to. That’s why I said it was a completely separate issue.Not if you only call for checks when failure has a meaningful consequence.I wasn’t referring to plot progress at all. I’m not really a big fan of “plots,” such as they are, in D&D. As I’ve said a few times now, whatever happens during play is the story. I find D&D 5e lends itself better to location-based games than event-based (or “plot-based”) ones.</blockquote>

Verification