D&D 5E "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.

[Satyrn]

i believe the first use of it here may have been just a few pages ago

"All that before each player goes into their monologue that describes their approach to the challenge of looking in the bar in hopes it passes the GM's auto-play checklist that ignores character stats?"

If you think "GM's auto-play checklist" is referring to the player's side of that as opposed to the part of the way the Gm decides resolutions, then yes, perhaps i did not communicate it clearly enough to reach everyone's understanding.

Aye. I still wouldn't be able to connect your use and its definition.

 

[redrick]

I'm editing out the rhetorical questions, and I'll try to break this up into chunks that I can respond to.

But you are not pulled off by dismissively describing games as in the check FOR EVERYTHING even when clearly and explicitly that is not what is being described?

"Auto-play" is supposed to be just "play" unlike say "check for everything" which is not also just "play"?

I didn't say that you roll a check for everything at your table. I assume that you do not roll checks to pick up weapons at your table, unless they are embedded in stone. However, when I, and others, have said that we do not roll checks for tasks that we view to be trivially successful (or boring to fail), you have accused us of "magic word" DM'ing.

I use auto-play to differentiate the stages as they have been differentiated by some of the players on this thread and others - that there is a stage where there is a detemination of auto-fail or auto-succeed that precedes a consult of character skill.

That "auto-play" stage exists between the player statement of action/approach/etc (with necessary clarifications as needed back and forth) and the announcement of resolution (success/fail) and that stage can result in a determination of fail, succeed or a check-the character dice mechanic for "uncertain" results.

Setting aside the fact that "auto-success" and "auto-fail" does not combine well to "auto-play" (autoplay sounds like autopilot).

The process that you describe as "determination of auto-fail or auto-success" would not, for me, be a process of failure and success. It is a process of determining what is impossible and what is trivially possible. No check has been auto-failed or auto-succeeded, because no check has occurred. When I ask the dude at the counter at a deli to give me a bottle of advil, I'm not "auto-succeeding a persuasion check," because, there is no doubt in my mind that, if I ask the person working at the deli to give me something behind the counter, he will give it to me.

Some have described it as good strategy, so much so that at other tables they may go and recommend to try and get the resolution in that auto-play stage instead of getting to the character stage.

I think you are blowing this "good strategy" thing a bit out of proportion. It is good strategy to break tasks down into achievable steps when possible, instead of just walking into a situation, throwing a d20 on the table and announcing a skill check. Personally, I would rather tell a player that announcing a vague skill check just won't cut it, tell me what you are actually doing, but going head to head with players sucks, so we often allow the check when some basic investigation of the situation would have bypassed the initial check (to accomplish something for which no check would have been needed), so we let the player have their skill check and, oh, wow, you rolled a 2+5 on your investigation check? Yeah, wow, I guess it never occurred to you to look under the bed.

Also, I should add, "search the room" scenarios are just a small subset of most games. I don't do that many of them these days.

Some have even quoted sections where whether the word "on" or "in" was stated it would be the difference between auto-succeed and either auto-fail or character/mechanics.

You keep coming back to this "on" or "in" scenario. I don't know what post or poster you are referring to and I don't know what situation you described. Maybe this makes sense, maybe this is pixel bitching. If we are saying, "I look on the bed" vs "I look in the bed", that's a little silly, unless the object is hidden under the mattress. On the other hand, something being "on the dresser" is very different than "in the dresser." I don't think I could mean "I go through the dresser" and accidentally say "I look on top of the dresser."

Never, in a game that I DM'ed, has a situation come down to confusion over the preposition used by the player.

So, those different stages of resolution seem markedly different - very distinctive - one focuses solely on the exchange between player and Gm and the other focuses on and brings into play the character and their capabilities - one can hinge on a single word said or unsaid - the other can be decided by a modified roll vs a difficulty etc.

Sort of. In the way I run this, the character is always in mind, just maybe not the attributes written on the character sheet. Where is the character in the space? What is the character doing?

I don't think a situation is ever going to come down to "a single word said or unsaid." Again, this is not a text adventure game. I have a normal vocabulary, and I can clarify with the player if I really don't understand what they are saying. If the situation doesn't make sense, I can try another approach to explain it, instead of just restating the same boxed text over and over again.

Personally, I don't see actions that could be resolved in the "goal and approach" section instead of the "call for a skill check" section. Actions don't require a check when their outcome is obvious. Usually, the difference between needing a check and not needing a check is different actions. (Do I try to climb the wall? Or do I move the boxes over and climb up on top of the boxes?) It's not about clever monologues or slipping in the right adverb.

So, if "auto-play" is now somehow offensive for calling that stage where the Gm decides without consulting character stats whether or not to have it be auto-success, auto-fail or consult the character... what term would you use to identify resolutions made at that stage as opposed to the others that you would find less offensive?

I think auto-play mischaracterizes and it sounds like autopilot, but what I took offense at was "auto-play checklist," which is the assertion that playing in a game that makes fewer skill checks is simply going through a procedural checklist in order to do everything. I'm sure there are tables like that, but it's not representative of asking players to state their goal and approach before determining the need for a check, as a whole. And it's part of a whole package of terms, the other of which I remember is "magic words."

i and others have stated quite a few times why we prefer varying degrees of checks, why we prefer the results we see in play and enjoyment etc... and i don't think we take offense at being told we make more rolls or checks but we might just have to wonder why the misreprsentative "check FOR EVERYTHING" is perfectly fine but "auto-play" to describe the stage where the success/fail is determined as automatic without considered character stats is offensive or dismissive?

is it possible (in your view) that the difference in whether or not you see "auto-play" as so offensive or dismissive and yet you toss in "check FOR EVERYTHING" without batting an eye is that you see yourself as more in agreement with the side you take offense for?

I said "roll FOR EVERYTHING", I was not criticizing your game, or anybody else's game, but simply saying, every time I see a scenario described where the DM felt no skill check or character sheet referencing was required, you described "the magic words coming in." I don't have any problem with what your table sounds like.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just to be clear, after my response the poster i was questioning admitted that the two parts were on different topics. Apparently the one "annoyed" issue was followed by an example that was not related to it.

Does that at all impact your assessment over whether or not it was appropriate to express it as "non-sequitur" (meaningless is your characterization - ice cream and pizza have meaning to me.

Specifically they said

"The bolded text you quoted is tangential. You can ignore it if it doesn't speak to you. It was in part responding to something else you said in a different post, because I didn't feel like multi-posting or multi-quoting."

So, maybe, possibly you can see that my comments about how the one did not mesh with the other, one did not follow from the other, one not supporting the other etc - like pizza and ice cream - was maybe not so out of whack with what was said and later acknowledge by the original poster?

Maybe?

No. Because as I stated, the issue is not in expressing that you didn’t see a connection between the two points. The issue was on the condescending way in which you expressed it.

 

[Charlaquin]

However, as you say, tone is not always easy to convey.

In fact, i think i am not on controversial ground here when i say it is often recommended to START with where you agree in discussions with someone, to lay a foundation of interest and get things off positive footing, before you go into the disagreements because going directly into disagreement can send a different tone etc...

by cutting out the positives, by choosing to dismiss the positive front loaded approach, etc... you seem to be skewing the pooch in a sense by choosing as not relevant the parts of the post where i did put effort into paving the positive ground before we got into the disagreement over the lack of linkage between the claim and the one cited example - which later on the poster admitted was on a different topic altogether.

I mean if somebody says
i dont like a because
b
c
d (Where D is the only actual example of style of play referenced for differences)

and then later admits d was on some other subject altogether

Is it really that offensive or dismissive to go into how d doesn't follow, how d seems to not be the same or to even ask if they got two different things confused into the one post?

Not in and of itself, but it is if you do it in a condescending way, which you did.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm editing out the rhetorical questions, and I'll try to break this up into chunks that I can respond to.



I didn't say that you roll a check for everything at your table. I assume that you do not roll checks to pick up weapons at your table, unless they are embedded in stone. However, when I, and others, have said that we do not roll checks for tasks that we view to be trivially successful (or boring to fail), you have accused us of "magic word" DM'ing.



Setting aside the fact that "auto-success" and "auto-fail" does not combine well to "auto-play" (autoplay sounds like autopilot).

The process that you describe as "determination of auto-fail or auto-success" would not, for me, be a process of failure and success. It is a process of determining what is impossible and what is trivially possible. No check has been auto-failed or auto-succeeded, because no check has occurred. When I ask the dude at the counter at a deli to give me a bottle of advil, I'm not "auto-succeeding a persuasion check," because, there is no doubt in my mind that, if I ask the person working at the deli to give me something behind the counter, he will give it to me.



I think you are blowing this "good strategy" thing a bit out of proportion. It is good strategy to break tasks down into achievable steps when possible, instead of just walking into a situation, throwing a d20 on the table and announcing a skill check. Personally, I would rather tell a player that announcing a vague skill check just won't cut it, tell me what you are actually doing, but going head to head with players sucks, so we often allow the check when some basic investigation of the situation would have bypassed the initial check (to accomplish something for which no check would have been needed), so we let the player have their skill check and, oh, wow, you rolled a 2+5 on your investigation check? Yeah, wow, I guess it never occurred to you to look under the bed.

Also, I should add, "search the room" scenarios are just a small subset of most games. I don't do that many of them these days.



You keep coming back to this "on" or "in" scenario. I don't know what post or poster you are referring to and I don't know what situation you described. Maybe this makes sense, maybe this is pixel bitching. If we are saying, "I look on the bed" vs "I look in the bed", that's a little silly, unless the object is hidden under the mattress. On the other hand, something being "on the dresser" is very different than "in the dresser." I don't think I could mean "I go through the dresser" and accidentally say "I look on top of the dresser."

Never, in a game that I DM'ed, has a situation come down to confusion over the preposition used by the player.



Sort of. In the way I run this, the character is always in mind, just maybe not the attributes written on the character sheet. Where is the character in the space? What is the character doing?

I don't think a situation is ever going to come down to "a single word said or unsaid." Again, this is not a text adventure game. I have a normal vocabulary, and I can clarify with the player if I really don't understand what they are saying. If the situation doesn't make sense, I can try another approach to explain it, instead of just restating the same boxed text over and over again.

Personally, I don't see actions that could be resolved in the "goal and approach" section instead of the "call for a skill check" section. Actions don't require a check when their outcome is obvious. Usually, the difference between needing a check and not needing a check is different actions. (Do I try to climb the wall? Or do I move the boxes over and climb up on top of the boxes?) It's not about clever monologues or slipping in the right adverb.



I think auto-play mischaracterizes and it sounds like autopilot, but what I took offense at was "auto-play checklist," which is the assertion that playing in a game that makes fewer skill checks is simply going through a procedural checklist in order to do everything. I'm sure there are tables like that, but it's not representative of asking players to state their goal and approach before determining the need for a check, as a whole. And it's part of a whole package of terms, the other of which I remember is "magic words."



I said "roll FOR EVERYTHING", I was not criticizing your game, or anybody else's game, but simply saying, every time I see a scenario described where the DM felt no skill check or character sheet referencing was required, you described "the magic words coming in." I don't have any problem with what your table sounds like.

See, here is the confusing part... When i reference in the post to enh about auto-play or whatever it was, you took it to be applied to lanefan game and went to take offense even tho it did not mention him and quoted enh.

But when you reference gms rolling for everything in your response to me, that is apparently not to be taken as refering to my games or anybody's game at all.

So, i am afraid, you and i will just have to agree to disagree on this as i do not see this getting much better through continued explanation.

Thanks for your viewpoints. I find them quite informative.

Happy New Year.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

No. Because as I stated, the issue is not in expressing that you didn’t see a connection between the two points. The issue was on the condescending way in which you expressed it.

Well, thats fine. I think we seem to have reached an impasse on this subject so i suggest we agree to disagree.

Happy New Year.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, thats fine. I think we seem to have reached an impasse on this subject so i suggest we agree to disagree.

Happy New Year.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

This is not an agree to disagree kind of situation. My issue with your post has nothing to do with your opinion and everything to do with the demeaning way you choose to express it. You are more than welcome to your opinions and preferences, but when you treat other people badly for their opinions, we’re going to have a problem. By all means, express your opinions. I rather enjoy discussing DMing techniques with you. But please, stop talking to people like they’re stupid.

Happy new year to you as well.

 

[5ekyu]

This is not an agree to disagree kind of situation. My issue with your post has nothing to do with your opinion and everything to do with the demeaning way you choose to express it. You are more than welcome to your opinions and preferences, but when you treat other people badly for their opinions, we’re going to have a problem. By all means, express your opinions. I rather enjoy discussing DMing techniques with you. But please, stop talking to people like they’re stupid.

Happy new year to you as well.

Thanks again for sharing your interpretations.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Lanefan]

I believe, though it's tough to track sometimes, that you were responding to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], who eschews skill checks in his game. I believe lanefan plays AD&D 1e. In his case, he would never reference the character perception score, because there is no perception score in AD&D. Lanefan also, by my reading, does expect his players to role-play their ability scores, so it's not that he ignores them. He just has a different way of interacting with them.

And yet, oddly enough, I do have what amounts to an informal perception system in my game. It comes up only when:

a) - someone tries to perceive something that isn't easy to perceive (too far away, or partly hidden in the fog, or something quite subtle - things like that); or
b) - there's something relevant in the vicinity that may or may not be noticed but nobody has specifically stated it is being looked for or at (and I do lots of fake rolls for these to conceal the real ones)

None of the three walk into a bars cases i gave in that rather tongue-in-cheek post cam from lanefan's posts

Nope, not guilty, yr' honour.

(as far as i know, its not like i have been a devoted follower of his dialog there.)

Heh - can't say as I blame you...

Lanefan

 

[5ekyu]

And yet, oddly enough, I do have what amounts to an informal perception system in my game. It comes up only when:

a) - someone tries to perceive something that isn't easy to perceive (too far away, or partly hidden in the fog, or something quite subtle - things like that); or
b) - there's something relevant in the vicinity that may or may not be noticed but nobody has specifically stated it is being looked for or at (and I do lots of fake rolls for these to conceal the real ones)

Nope, not guilty, yr' honour.
Heh - can't say as I blame you...

Lanefan

Sounds reasonable.

Happy new year.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app