Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7297889" data-attributes="member: 6919838">So, see here is the thing... to reach your conclusion you seem to want to hold that not only i ignored your other points about table rules, GM authority or respect  etc and such in my response but then treat that ignoring of those as a challenge to them?Do you not see a case where ignoring something in fact is just ignoring something in intent and not actually in fact challenging it?i did not address those other issues because i did not want to. there are various reasons but frankly, i did not see that aspect of the pieces you threw together as being anything that was worth a further delve into.The reason i chose to deal with the question about the attribute which was used is based off what we have seen numerous times in this thread: proponents of the GM ONLY CALLS ROLLS sides frequently tossing in the "doubt" over what ability score is used (or even sometimes what proficiency applies but you referenced ability scores so i stuck with that.) To me that is a rather nonsensical case which does not apply to games where the players and the GMs have a common reference history. (We most all admit I THINK there are exceptions made for new players who do not yet know their way around the table.) I referenced this a number of times before that since players (in the standard game approach) are responsible for choosing their stats or assigning their stats and making all sorts of choices that affect their character's numbers, then they have needed to know and understand and be on the same page as the Gm since day zero about what INT is used for vs what DEX is used for and so on and how the types of actions/tasks/descriptions would apply to that as well.So, there is not some "unknowable" aspect to the "choice of ability used for the task as i described it" that should be driving the "do players call for checks or does the Gm do so" part of this discussion. Or put another way, if your player does not know for your game and playing his character in it whether or not he described a DEX based action/approach or an INT based action/approach, the core problem you have that needs dealing with is much larger than the issue of who calls the roll.Since none of that had anything to do with your authority or your table rules or your question about respecting your table I did not comment on those.When you later went on about the disrespect to the entitlement you seem to feel you deserve with post like "So you would refuse the table rules to intentionally derail the dm, who has put a lot of effort into bringing you a game that, presumably, you are enjoying, as, we apparently have history, and have been playing together for a while?" it made me even happier that i chose (correctly) to not open that can of worms with you in particular.  or put simply, i chose intentionally not to dive into your bits and pieces about your authority and your respect and what is owed to you for all your hard work in later posts because i saw those as more trap than opportunity, more noise than signal, far less likely to yield productive discussion of differences than to enable venting emotional launches of indignation... The resulting insistence or imagining that my not engaging in that arena was in fact (taken by you) as an attack on them tells me i made the right call after all. It feels like even more so now that you were "spoiling for a slight" to your respect owed as Gm or however you choose to characterize it  and even when one was not presented, it was imagined.So, all in all, even though it did not work out as intended, i stand by my call that it was better to not choose to engage you on your "respect" or tables rules minefield.Now, please, BLOCK ME.Pretty please?With a cherry red beholder on top?</blockquote>

Verification