NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7292226" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Actually, i took his meaning to be that "deciding what playing the game is" is to them much more of a joint decision, not a GM fiat ALLOW/NOT-ALLOW one-sided thing. If the players at the table like to roll more checks etc... maybe they should not be told NOT ALLOWED as much as maybe the GM should consider a more flexible approach, for instance.As i have said, for me "the game" is a mix of the narrative, the mechanics and the choices all playing hand in hand in glove to form a fun experience. My players and i together form a balancing act between each individual's preferences, not just what the Gm allows.As for the final part... there is i think a fairly profound core disagreement on that point of your "strategy". I think very few players think if you roll, i will give you a failure chance whether there was one or not before you decided to roll is an actual part of DND 5e rules. Matter of fact, i am pretty sure it isn't but i will gladly welcome a correction.There is a gigantic difference between "if there is no chance of failure, no role is needed" and "if a roll is made that in and of itself forces a chance of failure TO EXIST."One needs to know the difference between necessary and sufficient in terms of statements and logic to understand that but it seems in this thread there are more than a few cases where that logic is applied.Now, of course, in earlier posts you clarified that in your games this does not happen and you are referring to games where GMs do apparently alter the possible outcomes if a roll is asked for.So this "if a roll is made sufficient case for failure chance" is not a thing you ascribe to yourself, if i remember your clarification from earlier.</blockquote>

Verification