Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7795650" data-attributes="member: 22779">You do realize that it has everything to do with the ACTUAL example we're talking about right?&nbsp; Which is the example where it's a DC 25 for double damage on a fail.&nbsp; [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] gave his reasons for this DC - to influence players away from stepping on class abilities.&nbsp; A goal that I could totally get behind, even though I seriously do not agree with the method of reaching that goal.If you don't want your players to do something, talk to them directly.&nbsp; Burying the lead and then putting out rulings like this into the game just leads to frustration.&nbsp; The player doesn't understand why the DC is so high and why anyone would bother attempting something so blatantly bad.&nbsp; The DM is frustrated because the player keeps trying to do stuff, not taking the hint, because the DM doesn't actually come forward and directly talk about the issue to the player.I'd point out that while I wouldn't mind Ovinomancer being a part of this conversation, the example does shed a lot of light on to why I am so adamantly opposed to this approach.&nbsp; When failure = additional direct consequences to the PC (and not just the result of the failure) then the math gets all wonky.&nbsp; Yes, if you fail a stealth check, you are spotted, but, that's not a direct consequence to your PC.&nbsp; That's simply the result of a failed stealth check.&nbsp; It's the stuff beyond that that I take issue with, where the player is attempting to do something using a skill and the DM sets up the fail conditions that are too punitive for the possible benefit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7795650, member: 22779"] You do realize that it has everything to do with the ACTUAL example we're talking about right? Which is the example where it's a DC 25 for double damage on a fail. [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] gave his reasons for this DC - to influence players away from stepping on class abilities. A goal that I could totally get behind, even though I seriously do not agree with the method of reaching that goal. If you don't want your players to do something, talk to them directly. Burying the lead and then putting out rulings like this into the game just leads to frustration. The player doesn't understand why the DC is so high and why anyone would bother attempting something so blatantly bad. The DM is frustrated because the player keeps trying to do stuff, not taking the hint, because the DM doesn't actually come forward and directly talk about the issue to the player. I'd point out that while I wouldn't mind Ovinomancer being a part of this conversation, the example does shed a lot of light on to why I am so adamantly opposed to this approach. When failure = additional direct consequences to the PC (and not just the result of the failure) then the math gets all wonky. Yes, if you fail a stealth check, you are spotted, but, that's not a direct consequence to your PC. That's simply the result of a failed stealth check. It's the stuff beyond that that I take issue with, where the player is attempting to do something using a skill and the DM sets up the fail conditions that are too punitive for the possible benefit. [/QUOTE]

Verification