Actually iserith i dont think i came close to asserting you were not using middle path. What i did try to show is there is a rather broad spectrum in the middle path based on how much the GM uses the auto-play by dint of their personal threshold for where "no chance of failure" etc kicks in. Some, perhaps many, set that threshold at mostly the obvious too eady stuff like not rolling to walk across floor. Others obviously may set that higher allowing more and more situations to be resolved with only the player's skill in the player-gm interaction being involved in a given circumstance with no reference to character skill.
I see a number of potential pitfalls with putting more and more of the resolutions into the gm-player interaction (with no character stst and mechanics) involved (even if they were not listed in the DMG.)
As for how much you use it in fact in your game (i never implied you never used mechanics btw) i take you at your word thats its enough that trying to get more auto-play is a better more winning strategy that you specifically mention it so often here as "strstegy" and even go into other games and advise those players of the same.
Are you now trying to say this is a minor thing, not that critical, not that important etc for your games, that it wont produce a siginificant difference in success?
If so that seems a new take on its significance.
But that spectrum of how much of the ability check gameplay falls into "player-gm" resolution without ever needing "character and mechanics" involved has no right or wrong answer in the midfle path or even the other paths. Different RPGs and different tables within given RPGs are all over the place.
My preference is to have the resolution after scene setup and action description/approach to be mostly in the hands of "character-mechanics" (or at least in the shadow of those) rather than in the "GM decides" based on the "GM-Player" dialog especially for important matters (with exceptions only for the more extreme beyond easy and out of possibility cases.)
I also find it keeps the gameplay not as much like two separate systems - one for fighting and other such cases (where that 1 and 20 rule means almost always mechanics and charactrr in play in the resolution) and one for ability checks (where the GM tells you its best strategy as player to keep mechanics out of play in the resolution altogether by succeeding at the auto-play side.)
Sent from my [device_name] using
EN World mobile app
Ah, this again, and I see you're still reading other's statements in the worst possible light so that you can maintain your prejudices. Sigh.
Look, it works like this. If a player states their character walks across the room and opens the door, they do that. No roll needed -- the situation isn't uncertain nor is a failure meaningful. If, however, there's a trap on the floor in front of the door, well, now the situation is uncertain (will the character see the trap in time?) and the outcome meaningful (the trap goes off), so a roll is called for. Perception seems a good place to start. So, same declaration, different outcome. If, however, the player declared that his character was checking the floor in front of the door for a trap, and I deem that any significant effort will discover said trap, then I might or might not call for a roll depending on my prep. If, for instance, the party had received information about the kinds and placement of traps in this area from an informant, I'd decide this was an autosuccess (and likely the reason the player declared such a specific action). If, instead, it was a lucky guess on the part of the player absent any other information, then I'd call for a check (you can miss obvious things) but might give advantage for the lucky declaration.
The same goes for the key in the drawer. If a player declares they're searching the drawer, there's a check called for (again, you can miss things, so it's uncertain and not finding the key is a meaningful outcome). If, however, the player declares they're taking the time to do a detailed search of the drawer, looking for false bottoms, for instance, then I'm going to decide that such a detailed examination of the contents finds the key automatically, but not a false bottom (there was none). The cost, here, will be time, as the character will take a number of minutes to conduct a detailed examination of the drawer and so can't perform other actions and may trigger a knock-on effect do to taking more time. Balance.
in the case of social check, sure, the player of that 6 CHA character can deliver a Globe Theatre quality monologue to the merchant, and I'll applaud their effort, but then I'll ask for a CHA check to convince the merchant of whatever the monologue was going for. This is because I don't really care what words you pick, the question isn't whether or not the player can speak but if his character can convince the merchant to part with that precious thing or not. To that effect, the flowery speech is nothing more than a longwinded goal/approach statement, and that affects neither the uncertainty nor the meaningfulness of the interaction. So, please roll a check.
Autosuccess in social engagements isn't based on the quality of the delivery, but on the quality of the approach. If you've done your research, and you know that this merchant is afraid of the tax-man because he's been cheating, or that he loves, loves, loves the taste of a rare spice, then if you couch your approach as leveraging these things you'll get a better go of it. Insinuate that you know the auditor and that if the merchant is unreasonable he might stop in for a visit or that you'd be willing to offer a tin of this fine spice for some consideration about the item and you'll likely be rolling with advantage. Do them both (carrot/stick) and you might get an autosuccess for doing a good job of prep and application of knowledge. Deliver a flowery speech at the player table and I'll clap and then ask for a roll.
Or, if you just are out looking for some rope, you can buy that at book price without a single roll needed. It's not uncertain -- at least for now, but when the Great Hemp Shortage starts up next session, well... check time.
Accusing other people of being easily swayed by player theatrics, especially when you've never gamed with them and have zero idea of what happens at their table (and your continued imaginings despite clear statements to the contrary show you have no idea) is petty and looks very bad on you. Again, I'm happy you enjoy your game, which you play in a different (or not different) style than I or [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] or anyone else, for that matter, does. It's exciting to know that there are so many good ways to play Pretend Elves. And, honestly, I'm a bit of a gaming butterfly -- I can play in and enjoy many different styles of play and games and adapt easily to most tables. But, for now, when I run, I like the style I use, and I'm sure you like the style you use. Neither is the most right style, but both are the most right style for each of us. Which is pretty awesome when you think about it.
