Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9228161" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I have read at least one WoTC adventure. I don't recall any strength challenges of note within it. I am familiar with a DC 30 door in The Storm King's Thunder, which I had not fully read but the door was part of other research. But, instead of giving clues to someone, who you just admitted you knew was clearly misunderstanding your point? A more effective method of relaying information is to tell them. When you listed those other checks, I responded as I did to demonstrate that those checks are often NOT barriers to progression, in part because I have seen poorly designed dungeons and adventures that have attempted to make those as railroaded, single check, failure points of the adventure. I played in a game that stalled and the DM had to threaten the PCs with poison gas, all because of a failed Perception check. And, seeing my response, which was essentially &quot;No, these checks don't work like that&quot; would have clearly indicated to you that your clue and hint were missed. Because that would be a rather silly response from me to explain how they are different if you expected me to say they were the same. And yet, after your clue you left to supposedly paternally guide me to correctly understanding you failed to achieve that result... you double down and still refused to be more clear, framing it as my fault for not having read enough of the adventures in question. Conversations are two-way streets. Since you have clearly understood that I was misunderstanding you for days now, why not be more directly clear sooner, instead of wasting everyone's time?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9228161, member: 6801228"] I have read at least one WoTC adventure. I don't recall any strength challenges of note within it. I am familiar with a DC 30 door in The Storm King's Thunder, which I had not fully read but the door was part of other research. But, instead of giving clues to someone, who you just admitted you knew was clearly misunderstanding your point? A more effective method of relaying information is to tell them. When you listed those other checks, I responded as I did to demonstrate that those checks are often NOT barriers to progression, in part because I have seen poorly designed dungeons and adventures that have attempted to make those as railroaded, single check, failure points of the adventure. I played in a game that stalled and the DM had to threaten the PCs with poison gas, all because of a failed Perception check. And, seeing my response, which was essentially "No, these checks don't work like that" would have clearly indicated to you that your clue and hint were missed. Because that would be a rather silly response from me to explain how they are different if you expected me to say they were the same. And yet, after your clue you left to supposedly paternally guide me to correctly understanding you failed to achieve that result... you double down and still refused to be more clear, framing it as my fault for not having read enough of the adventures in question. Conversations are two-way streets. Since you have clearly understood that I was misunderstanding you for days now, why not be more directly clear sooner, instead of wasting everyone's time? [/QUOTE]

Verification