Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7310918" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Ok so let me get this straight you are upset about how you see me mischaracterizing the way some Gms play etc etc...And in the bolded section you yourself choose to characterize what i do as &quot;dismissal of DM's who don't just call a check ON EVERYTHING&quot; when over and over i have said something quite different and have never, not once, referenced requiring a check ON EVERYTHING cor anything close to that? Do you see the problem?i have said on more than a few occasions that IMX most (if not all0 Gms have a spectrum with auto-play on one side and checks on the other and even with many mixes in between (like say basing some auto-play on character stats as opposed to divorcing the two) with nobody that I know of being all one way or the other... although certainly there are some games which eschew one for the other.That very type of &quot;ROLL FOR EVERYTHING&quot; mischaracterization which keeps getting slid in under the radar in comments by those who seem&nbsp; prefer a wider auto-play as a matter of course and which, maybe i am wrong, but i do not recall having seen you speak out against? As i have stated, the biggest difference i see is that along this spectrum some allow a much larger scope of resolutions to fall within the auto-play window (specifically the auto-play without reference to stats of the character) and push more of the resolution process onto the player-gm interaction alone while others (like me) see it as more beneficial to have the character stats play a role in that process for a lot of the cases that seem to be being described in the auto-play by others. As for your comment about following this and that and how your end was not related to your beginning... I get that threads wind around a lot but starting with &quot;annoyed&quot; and providing one detailed example that is on a completely different subject is bound to get a question, right?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7310918, member: 6919838"] Ok so let me get this straight you are upset about how you see me mischaracterizing the way some Gms play etc etc... And in the bolded section you yourself choose to characterize what i do as "dismissal of DM's who don't just call a check ON EVERYTHING" when over and over i have said something quite different and have never, not once, referenced requiring a check ON EVERYTHING cor anything close to that? Do you see the problem? i have said on more than a few occasions that IMX most (if not all0 Gms have a spectrum with auto-play on one side and checks on the other and even with many mixes in between (like say basing some auto-play on character stats as opposed to divorcing the two) with nobody that I know of being all one way or the other... although certainly there are some games which eschew one for the other. That very type of "ROLL FOR EVERYTHING" mischaracterization which keeps getting slid in under the radar in comments by those who seem prefer a wider auto-play as a matter of course and which, maybe i am wrong, but i do not recall having seen you speak out against? As i have stated, the biggest difference i see is that along this spectrum some allow a much larger scope of resolutions to fall within the auto-play window (specifically the auto-play without reference to stats of the character) and push more of the resolution process onto the player-gm interaction alone while others (like me) see it as more beneficial to have the character stats play a role in that process for a lot of the cases that seem to be being described in the auto-play by others. As for your comment about following this and that and how your end was not related to your beginning... I get that threads wind around a lot but starting with "annoyed" and providing one detailed example that is on a completely different subject is bound to get a question, right? [/QUOTE]

Verification