Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7588666" data-attributes="member: 6919838">* Why is "I use [INSERT SKILL]" forbidden if the intent and action is clear? Obviously in my games it isnt. If I need more info, I ask. If it's a new player, I may try to coax more out of them with leading questions if there is an obvious hook in the scene to gain advsntage, as a teaching tool for newboes.* How are you not diminishing the values of investment in skills if a person can just describe what they're doing to get an automatic success*?In my game, in challenges that matter, the auto-successes will almost always derive from their skills. My game primer outlines the auto-success by skill parameters we use - and they are driven by stats not dialog. An exceptional plan (which is a lot more than just describing the most obvious "how we do this" like "I wipe a handle") can get you advantage. A bad plan, disadvantage. * Why is finding/disabling the once in a blue moon trap/secret door with a couple of dice rolls a deal breaker for you if you aren't the person doing it and it takes a minute or so to resolve? It's a minor speed bump I put in for flavor, not the focus of the game for me.That's about the frequency I see these in my games.In fact, Mondsy I expect a player to auto-spot a fake wall section because his passive scores are high enough to do so. * Why is it a big deal if the DM wants to keep the players guessing about whether or not the PC is using deception by having people roll an insight check?Hah. In my games, players make every roll, ever. I do not touch dice. (They roll "armor check" to "not get hit" for example.) They are also told in rule "you can use the die roll in your and your character's assessment and conclusion, as a measure of how confident your character is about the result. It's not meta-gaming." I as GM carry through on that with my descriptions and narration. A roll of 2 gets a narrative which shows it was not a result that's all that convincing, conclusive. Typically it adds something in the narrative that shows some environmental factor monkeying the wrench.But, with success, failure-no progress and failure- some progress with setback all PHB core, this does not remove or limit my ability to make insight checks very fun and useful and mysterious. Or any other check, for that matter.That said, I am not a GM who goes in for actual puzzles. Much more a fan of more interactive challenges like social or mysteries myself.All that said, the part I still see very few clear answer on is - and I cant figure out if it's very odd or very telling - for all of the bluster and banter about how approach-method-no-dc-until-method-only-roll-if-method-uncertainty and huff about how they suto-success vs checks and stats etc etc etc... is how often does it happen?How often does a challenge that matters get resolved thru method-approach without a comparison of "difficulty  to skill of character" (not necessarily numbers) vs how often are these challenges resolved using comparisons of diff to skill of characters?We saw one poster say it was 50/50 out of combat iirc. Me, I gave a more detailed breakdown that basically puts it at about 1 in 10 for my games at most. 9 times in 10 character stats vs difficulty is used in resolving challenges that matter and method-approach is limited to the advantage/disadvantage side. Has one which said there were normally only very few approaches that auto-success but was not clear if that was per challenge - so not really sure.It's just odd for something so lauded so strongly, the actual number of times the method-approach removes uncertainty auto-success is applied seems to be something that keeps getting, well, it seems... hidden.I mean, if I am promoting something that I do in my games, how often it happens and makes a diff is not usually something I am shy sbout.</blockquote>

Verification