Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8285502" data-attributes="member: 6779196">You said that (the way I interpret) the 5e rules “leaves out” those scenarios. I don’t know how else to interpret that argument than that it doesn’t address them. It does address them, and it is not a semantic argument to say so.A missable bonus is not the same thing as a challenge. That’s my point.I don’t recall such a conversation about story pacing and editing, but I suppose it’s possible. At any rate, D&D is a game; what I think makes for good gameplay is not the same as what I think makes good story pacing. Though, you’re probably right that we have different gameplay preferences, and it may also be the case that we have different preferences in fiction. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♀️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2640.png" title="Woman shrugging    :woman_shrugging:" data-shortname=":woman_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />More importantly, you said you felt that (the way I interpret) the 5e rules for when to call for rolls makes players treat it like a video game. My experience is that frequently calling for checks when there aren’t dramatic stakes makes players treat it like a video game. Either we have different ideas of what “like a video game” means, or there’s something else we’re each doing that is causing this discrepancy, besides just when we call for rolls.Well, I don’t think every scene needs dramatic stakes (but I don’t think those that don’t have them should require dice to resolve), and I don’t think that having dramatic stakes makes the world less believable. So, I pretty much disagree with your entire statement.Sure, if I was writing a novel or a screenplay, those scenes would be very important for the pacing of the story. That’s not what I’m doing when I run a game of D&D though. Now, granted, sometimes low-stakes or no-stakes scenes are good for gameplay. I enjoy a good interview with a quirky, cagey NPC from time to time. But it’s generally very player-driven when those scenes happen, and when they do, I don’t think dice rolls are necessary or desirable for resolving them.It’s that “and the difference is potentially interesting” part that I think is key here. I don’t find maintenance of the status quo interesting. When the options are “nothing happens” or “something happens and it’s good for the PCs,” I’ll take the latter every time, because it means something is happening....What?Except they already didn’t have what they want. Continuing to not have what they want isn’t something happening. It’s the opposite.I agree.Because you presented that outcome as a direct benefit of the way you prefer to run it. But it’s an outcome that is equally possible (and in my opinion, more interesting) the way I run it.Right, but a boring one, because it leads to nothing happening instead of something happening. That’s been my point.I agree with you on most of this, apart from the half hour of the PCs wasting their time chasing their own tails. That’s awful gameplay in my opinion. The way I run the game aims to avoid that. The rest is good stuff, and happens the way I run the game.Again, we’re taking about gameplay, not writing or editing. And not every gameplay scent needs to move the plot forward (in fact, I don’t think there should really be a plot. Whatever happens in the game is the “plot,” such as it is.) But, the gameplay should be focused on... well... play. Making meaningful, consequential decisions and dealing with the outcomes. If that isn’t happening, you don’t need game mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification