Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7015560" data-attributes="member: 16814">I find this a bit myopic.&nbsp; There are different playstyles out there, and this isn't a problem created in some of them.&nbsp; You (and @iserth, and me, for that matter) prefer a playstyle where the rolls always move things forward.&nbsp; You would not ask for a stealth check where a success doesn't do anything, for instance, but only when the success moves the game forward.&nbsp; As such, you don't ask for stealth unless it's part of a larger goal.&nbsp; You don't sneak as your goal, you try to get somewhere unnoticed, which, if uncertain, calls for a sneak check.&nbsp; I prefer this as well, and strive to create this in my games -- not asking for rolls unless there are stakes on both sides.But there's a whole wealth of other, more simulationist, playstyles out there that don't work to frame everything in such a narrative way.&nbsp; For them, sneaking is an objective in and of itself.&nbsp; You may not prefer it, but that's neither here nor there.&nbsp; For those players and DMs, minimizing the information gained from the mechanical engine is a play goal, and random checks are an effective method of obfuscating information from the mechanics engine.&nbsp; I find passive perception does this as well, but everyone gets to pick for themselves.So, labelling something that works as 'causing it's own problems' for what's essentially a different playstyle than yours isn't something I can agree with, even as I run my games in much the way you do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7015560, member: 16814"] I find this a bit myopic. There are different playstyles out there, and this isn't a problem created in some of them. You (and @iserth, and me, for that matter) prefer a playstyle where the rolls always move things forward. You would not ask for a stealth check where a success doesn't do anything, for instance, but only when the success moves the game forward. As such, you don't ask for stealth unless it's part of a larger goal. You don't sneak as your goal, you try to get somewhere unnoticed, which, if uncertain, calls for a sneak check. I prefer this as well, and strive to create this in my games -- not asking for rolls unless there are stakes on both sides. But there's a whole wealth of other, more simulationist, playstyles out there that don't work to frame everything in such a narrative way. For them, sneaking is an objective in and of itself. You may not prefer it, but that's neither here nor there. For those players and DMs, minimizing the information gained from the mechanical engine is a play goal, and random checks are an effective method of obfuscating information from the mechanics engine. I find passive perception does this as well, but everyone gets to pick for themselves. So, labelling something that works as 'causing it's own problems' for what's essentially a different playstyle than yours isn't something I can agree with, even as I run my games in much the way you do. [/QUOTE]

Verification