Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="redrick" data-source="post: 7310957" data-attributes="member: 6777696">I appreciate that you feel like our approaches (and I mean &quot;our&quot; in the general sense, not just the &quot;us two&quot; sense) are more similar than they are dissimilar. You are probably right in most cases.I don't want to get into parsing out the details of your or my game, because I think it's hard, without being at the table, or having play transcripts, to really know what goes on. From what I can piece together, you seem to have a reasonable way of running your games, and, based on what you have described, I imagine that I would be happy at a table with you as the DM. By what you have posted, I do think it is fair to characterize your games as requiring more checks than some other games. That's fine. It is, as you have said, a spectrum.I run into issues with the way you describe games other than your own. I mean, even the term &quot;auto-play&quot; is a misrepresentation. Asking the character to state a goal and an approach, and determining that the outcome is obvious, is the opposite of &quot;auto-play.&quot; It is play. It is the player describing what their character is doing, and the DM saying, &quot;Yes, what you are describing is not hard to do and would achieve the desired outcome.&quot;So, again, that's where the daylight exists between us. Not in the nitty gritty differences between our games, where I might encourage player knowledge and attention, and where you might encourage players to focus on how their respective ability scores and proficiencies would influence their behavior. It is in the way you dismissively describe games you have never played in and whole approaches.I think, upthread, in one of your responses to my posts, there was an interesting conversation to be had about an approach that you felt stifled player involvement in a way that I felt it encouraged it. I'd enjoy exploring that, but, honestly, I can't, because I'm too busy getting pulled off-topic by all this nonsense about &quot;magic words.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="redrick, post: 7310957, member: 6777696"] I appreciate that you feel like our approaches (and I mean "our" in the general sense, not just the "us two" sense) are more similar than they are dissimilar. You are probably right in most cases. I don't want to get into parsing out the details of your or my game, because I think it's hard, without being at the table, or having play transcripts, to really know what goes on. From what I can piece together, you seem to have a reasonable way of running your games, and, based on what you have described, I imagine that I would be happy at a table with you as the DM. By what you have posted, I do think it is fair to characterize your games as requiring more checks than some other games. That's fine. It is, as you have said, a spectrum. I run into issues with the way you describe games other than your own. I mean, even the term "auto-play" is a misrepresentation. Asking the character to state a goal and an approach, and determining that the outcome is obvious, is the opposite of "auto-play." It is play. It is the player describing what their character is doing, and the DM saying, "Yes, what you are describing is not hard to do and would achieve the desired outcome." So, again, that's where the daylight exists between us. Not in the nitty gritty differences between our games, where I might encourage player knowledge and attention, and where you might encourage players to focus on how their respective ability scores and proficiencies would influence their behavior. It is in the way you dismissively describe games you have never played in and whole approaches. I think, upthread, in one of your responses to my posts, there was an interesting conversation to be had about an approach that you felt stifled player involvement in a way that I felt it encouraged it. I'd enjoy exploring that, but, honestly, I can't, because I'm too busy getting pulled off-topic by all this nonsense about "magic words." [/QUOTE]

Verification