D&D 5E Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?

[FrogReaver]

The quote of yours I responded to was a response to Iserith's scenario with 8 orcs, not a lone orc.

The first person I mentioned an orc to was ElfCrusher. Then iserith jumped in on that and accused me of arguing in bad faith. It seems you are confused with the flow of events that occurred.

 

[iserith]

Admittedly I don't love secret rolls, either. But I'm not staunchly opposed to them.

Chiefly I see it used as a means to combat what some call "metagaming" when the player is given false information but can look at the terrible result he or she just rolled and think "okay, this must be false information then." So the DM rolls it secretly instead. This solution though is self-defeating in my opinion in the sense that all you're really doing is encouraging players to engage in different "metagaming" in that they are discentivized for trying to recall lore altogether (since you don't know if the info is true or false) and instead just quietly act on information the DM might otherwise believe the character has no right to. I'm not going to try to recall lore on flumphs since I won't know if the answer is true or false, so I'll just act on my "player knowledge" about flumphs being vulnerable to psychic. After all, I'm a bard and vicious mockery is a cantrip that I use regularly, so who will gainsay that?

It's a method that I don't think these groups really look at too closely to see all of its many flaws wherein the very thing they're trying to prevent is actually exacerbated or at least just shifted to another place. It could be argued that the player above is acting in bad faith, but since there isn't actually a requirement to have specific knowledge to act in any particular way, it's valid to do that. There are, after all, many approaches to a specific goal.

This is why I think, at least in this case, progress combined with a setback as I described above works better than "you dunno" or false information with or without a secret roll. It deals with all of the aforementioned concerns simultaneously and exists within the standard framework of the rules.

And really this is for the benefit of anyone else reading this since it looks like you don't love it, but would deal with it anyway. I thought my thinking on this might be helpful even if it's a bit off topic.

 

[FrogReaver]

See, this is where you're arguing in bad faith, by pretending to confuse formally defined actions (of which Grapple is one) with poorly defined tasks that require judgment calls.

All he is saying...and I think you know this...is that the player should say what they do. "Goal and approach" is a useful way of avoiding ambiguity. When you invoke a formally defined action, like Grapple, there is very little ambiguity. It is both goal and approach.

Of course, there are situations where more information might be needed. Maybe the orc is behind bars, so it's not obvious how you grapple him. Or he's too far away. Or you are carrying something heavy with both arms. In all of those cases you would need to add some "approach".

I don't like using the "block" feature, but I think I shall choose to not engage with you further on this topic unless you actually want to have a conversation, instead of engaging in semantic gotchas.

This is too funny. The first bit of criticsm about yall's playstyle and everyone criticisng the playstyle is arguing in bad faith. How many people have yall blocked from this thread alone regarding that?

 

[Seramus]

This is too funny. The first bit of criticsm about yall's playstyle and everyone criticisng the playstyle is arguing in bad faith. How many people have yall blocked from this thread alone regarding that?

Well, the new forums reset my blocks so I imagine this thread is just a fresh reminder to renew old blocks from long ago. For example, I used to have you blocked but now you are not. If I did block you again, it would be for past discussions and not because of this single current discussion.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, the new forums reset my blocks so I imagine this thread is just a fresh reminder to renew old blocks from long ago. For example, I used to have you blocked but now you are not. If I did block you again, it would be for past discussions and not because of this single current discussion.

Which is fine. Iserith never had me blocked before. Elfcrusher and I have had each other blocked on and off before.

I just find it funny that Iserith misconstrues my post and then blocks me for that. Then elfcrusher 2 posts later jumps on that boat. I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one in this thread that's experienced that behavior. Just wondering aloud how many others have.

 

[Seramus]

I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one in this thread that's experienced that behavior. Just wondering aloud how many others have.

I’m saying it’s probably happening because of long-standing behavior and past altercations, not specifically the contents of this single thread.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m saying it’s probably happening because of long-standing behavior and past altercations, not specifically the contents of this single thread.

I know. I'm saying I don't think that's accurate because that wasn't the case with iserith because he never had me blocked before

 

[iserith]

Well, the new forums reset my blocks so I imagine this thread is just a fresh reminder to renew old blocks from long ago. For example, I used to have you blocked but now you are not. If I did block you again, it would be for past discussions and not because of this single current discussion.

Same. I had Hussar blocked before the reformatting but he was unblocked when I saw his responses to this thread. Used to be that if you blocked someone they could not longer see your posts. Not sure if that still works that way. I'm leaving Hussar unblocked for now because I have sympathy for people who have had a string of terrible DMs and he admitted as much in this thread, so I'm weighing his posts against whatever baggage he is projecting onto me. For now. I'm used to people disagreeing with me. What I can't abide are obvious bad faith tactics.

 

[Seramus]

As a point of scientific interest, if Iserith has blocked FrogReaver then Frog is still able to see his posts and ‘react’ to them. This certainly wasn’t possible on the old forums.

 

[FrogReaver]

As a point of scientific interest, if Iserith has blocked FrogReaver then Frog is still able to see his posts and ‘react’ to them. This certainly wasn’t possible on the old forums.

yes. I'm wondering if that's how it is working here. maybe you can get iserith to replay if he does have me blocked as I suspect.