Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8285539" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Yes, and I believe that how you deal with situations wherein the stakes are getting something vs not getting the thing has a significant impact on the way the game plays out. I think if you change that assumption, it changes the way a lot of other rules interact. You may still have a fun game of course, but it will be a game that plays quite differently than 5e as-written plays. Which way is more enjoyable is of course subjective.I don’t agree that it hurts nothing, or that it adds verisimilitude to the world. Particularly, rolling for it would necessitate either retries with no consequence (leading to lots of pointless rolls and wasted table time) or no retries, which we have discussed at length why I find that to be extremely harmful to verisimilitude.Now, if you would rather not have that safe than allow it to be opened without a roll, fair enough. Don’t include it. Or, include it and include some source of pressure in the scenario - a guard, or a ticking time bomb, or a trap that goes off if you try and fail to open the safe, whatever. Nothing about that is harmful to verisimilitude in my opinion.Personally, I’m not averse to allowing the safe to be opened without a roll. If there’s no consequence, no source of pressure, I am comfortable assuming it took a little time but you eventually manage to get it open. I think having a source of pressure is generally better gameplay, but if it doesn’t make sense for there to be a source of pressure, so be it. The players can get what’s in the safe.It can do, depending on how it’s handled.I didn’t claim otherwise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8285539, member: 6779196"] Yes, and I believe that how you deal with situations wherein the stakes are getting something vs not getting the thing has a [I]significant[/I] impact on the way the game plays out. I think if you change that assumption, it changes the way a lot of other rules interact. You may still have a fun game of course, but it will be a game that plays quite differently than 5e as-written plays. Which way is more enjoyable is of course subjective. I don’t agree that it hurts nothing, or that it adds verisimilitude to the world. Particularly, rolling for it would necessitate either retries with no consequence (leading to lots of pointless rolls and wasted table time) or no retries, which we have discussed at length why I find that to be extremely harmful to verisimilitude. Now, if you would rather not have that safe than allow it to be opened without a roll, fair enough. Don’t include it. Or, include it and include some source of pressure in the scenario - a guard, or a ticking time bomb, or a trap that goes off if you try and fail to open the safe, whatever. Nothing about that is harmful to verisimilitude in my opinion. Personally, I’m not averse to allowing the safe to be opened without a roll. If there’s no consequence, no source of pressure, I am comfortable assuming it took a little time but you eventually manage to get it open. I think having a source of pressure is generally better gameplay, but if it doesn’t make sense for there to be a source of pressure, so be it. The players can get what’s in the safe. It can do, depending on how it’s handled. I didn’t claim otherwise. [/QUOTE]

Verification