Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7310988" data-attributes="member: 6919838">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?Right?Thats not something to be taken as annoying?&quot;Auto-play&quot; is supposed to be just &quot;play&quot; unlike say &quot;check for everything&quot; which is not also just &quot;play&quot;?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 &quot;auto-play&quot; 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 &quot;uncertain&quot; results.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.Some have even quoted sections where whether the word &quot;on&quot; or &quot;in&quot; was stated it would be the difference between auto-succeed and either auto-fail or character/mechanics.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.So, if &quot;auto-play&quot; 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 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 &quot;check FOR EVERYTHING&quot; is perfectly fine but &quot;auto-play&quot; 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 &quot;auto-play&quot; as so offensive or dismissive and yet you toss in &quot;check FOR EVERYTHING&quot; without batting an eye is that you see yourself as more in agreement with the side you take offense for?Perhaps?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7310988, member: 6919838"] 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? Right? Thats not something to be taken as annoying? "Auto-play" is supposed to be just "play" unlike say "check for everything" which is not also just "play"? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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? Perhaps? [/QUOTE]

Verification