Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7588441" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yes, you've said.  The big deal should be for the player, as failure has a consequence in my game.  You seem to keep missing this.As this question has been answered ad nauseum, the only way you still don't know has to be studied inattention.Of course it happens when I have a new player and am unwinding what other GM's have done in their games.  If I need to, I explain it again, my other players explain it.  Despite how hard you're trying to make it, it's really not hard at all.  Once I made the mental shift to this style, it's been pretty easy to get players to. :blink: okay.Presumably the players were already suspicious when they asked for the check, so, if they succeed, you confirm they should be suspicious?  What happens if they fail?Look, you can, of course, play however you enjoy (and more power to you), but I put in a lot of thought about what checks actually mean in the fiction and what they do.  I'm not going to call for a check if it doesn't do something concretely changing in the fiction on both a success or a failure.  A check, in my game, will always, always, always change the fiction.  Something will happen to make it different from before.  And, because of this, I've changed what's in my sessions.  These fundamental changes mean that asking to roll a check in my game would be very suboptimal play.Then, what's the point?  If the check does not resolve an uncertainty, what does it do?See, this is why people don't give you examples.  You ignore the presentation of play and how method is utilized and zero in on a specific point, change it, and then say how you'd make a different call in the changed situation.  Here, you say, "I'd be fine with just asking for an intimidate check."  You ignore that the player presented an approach that tried to either get an automatic success (a pit fighting champion in spiked armor that gives off infernal smoke and with glowing red eyes is pretty threatening) or at least angling for advantage.  And, his approach negated the disadvantage for trying to intimidate someone four times your size that has a bunch of burly friends at his back.  Your roll, absent goal and approach, does what?  What did the PC do? What do I have to assume to figure out what happens on a success or failure? Did the PC use subtle threats against family? Don't know.Did the PC threaten to burn down the bar? Don't know.Why am I going to guess when I can just have the player tell me?Again, studied inattention is the only possibility.  I've provided actual play examples with die rolls that you've responded to!!!  And, no one, as in not a single person in this thread, has ever said "use dice as a last resort."  They've said players should avoid rolling, and that's because failure has consequences and you want to minimize your exposure.  I call for dice all the time.I'd say you badly misunderstand that response.  I only use passive numbers when a given approach calls for them.  Also, since a check will always change the fiction, I don't need to hide things and can ooenly ask fir passive values because things, at that point, are already going to happen.If you like the randomness of the die, the GM probably isn't applying consequences for failure.</blockquote>

Verification