Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players Self-Assigning Rolls
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7294506" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Goodness. Well, I looked back, and it seems that you only referenced the indie games that allow a successful check to author changes in the fiction, so I felt you were only talking about those games. Apparently, though, you were talking about all indie games, with all resolution mechanics, and shouldn't be held to the specific reference you made because there might be a different indie game that uses a different mechanic that wasn't that? I'd really hate to believe that you're telling us that we should not understand you with the words you use, but instead as a quantum uncertainty that can be both referring to what you said and yet also referring to what you didn't say but might be possible. It would make discussion with you... difficult, for lack of a better term.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, as I've said multiple times in multiple posts, some of which you've even quoted, I specifically <em>don't </em>see them as incompatible. However, I do see allowing player declared rolls to incentivize play that is counter to the goals of clearly stated objectives and methods. You can counter that incentive, but you have to be resolute.</p><p></p><p>Which is something I've also said more than once.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, doubt, as every time they've described the roll they've made as 'Diplomacy check, 15!' That's a well described roll. If we go with what I think you meant to say, you're claiming you require a goal and method to the check, so instead the player says 'I try to flatter the merchant into giving us a discount, Diplomancy check, 15!' That is better, and right in line with what I say above about the two methods not being incompatible.</p><p></p><p>However, that said, I haven't yet seen an actual description of how you do this in your games, yet. It's possible I missed it, yes, but it's really only been you recently claiming this is what happens without example. Hard to know if what you're saying you do comports with what we do to any degree with examples. Not that you owe them to us, this is an internet discussion between strangers, after all, and nothing is owed to anyone. But it's hard to continue the discussion with bland general statements attached to cries of victimhood like this:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, the 'narrative' is here just to pick on you. Except, and this is important, no one here really cares how you play it in your game. I'm pretty sure all of us are happy you're playing, because it expands the group we share a common interest in. Don't confused impassioned championing of my style here with any condemnation of yours. I played like you did for a long time, and had a great deal of fun doing it, too. I just have changed over time to value a different experience. Different, not better. Better for me, yes, and seemingly better for my game (it's being well received so far), but not objectively better for anyone else. How you play is up to you, and if you like how you do it, well, I like that you like how you do it. Disagreement doesn't engender victimhood -- don't fall into that trap as it's an easy way to assure yourself you have nothing to learn. I've learned a few things from you in this discussion, honestly. They've all mostly convinced me that the way I'm going is right for me, but you've helped me cement a few loose cracks in my thinking that I didn't know existed until they were challenged. For that, thank you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7294506, member: 16814"] Goodness. Well, I looked back, and it seems that you only referenced the indie games that allow a successful check to author changes in the fiction, so I felt you were only talking about those games. Apparently, though, you were talking about all indie games, with all resolution mechanics, and shouldn't be held to the specific reference you made because there might be a different indie game that uses a different mechanic that wasn't that? I'd really hate to believe that you're telling us that we should not understand you with the words you use, but instead as a quantum uncertainty that can be both referring to what you said and yet also referring to what you didn't say but might be possible. It would make discussion with you... difficult, for lack of a better term. Well, as I've said multiple times in multiple posts, some of which you've even quoted, I specifically [I]don't [/I]see them as incompatible. However, I do see allowing player declared rolls to incentivize play that is counter to the goals of clearly stated objectives and methods. You can counter that incentive, but you have to be resolute. Which is something I've also said more than once. No, doubt, as every time they've described the roll they've made as 'Diplomacy check, 15!' That's a well described roll. If we go with what I think you meant to say, you're claiming you require a goal and method to the check, so instead the player says 'I try to flatter the merchant into giving us a discount, Diplomancy check, 15!' That is better, and right in line with what I say above about the two methods not being incompatible. However, that said, I haven't yet seen an actual description of how you do this in your games, yet. It's possible I missed it, yes, but it's really only been you recently claiming this is what happens without example. Hard to know if what you're saying you do comports with what we do to any degree with examples. Not that you owe them to us, this is an internet discussion between strangers, after all, and nothing is owed to anyone. But it's hard to continue the discussion with bland general statements attached to cries of victimhood like this: Yes, the 'narrative' is here just to pick on you. Except, and this is important, no one here really cares how you play it in your game. I'm pretty sure all of us are happy you're playing, because it expands the group we share a common interest in. Don't confused impassioned championing of my style here with any condemnation of yours. I played like you did for a long time, and had a great deal of fun doing it, too. I just have changed over time to value a different experience. Different, not better. Better for me, yes, and seemingly better for my game (it's being well received so far), but not objectively better for anyone else. How you play is up to you, and if you like how you do it, well, I like that you like how you do it. Disagreement doesn't engender victimhood -- don't fall into that trap as it's an easy way to assure yourself you have nothing to learn. I've learned a few things from you in this discussion, honestly. They've all mostly convinced me that the way I'm going is right for me, but you've helped me cement a few loose cracks in my thinking that I didn't know existed until they were challenged. For that, thank you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players Self-Assigning Rolls
Top