Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9678771" data-attributes="member: 1008">I have played in a fashion where rolls tend to be extremely rare since the 80s or 90s. If there is no combat, it would not be unusual for there to be no more than two or three player-facing rolls in an 8 hour session. When I'm running an OSR game, the only rolls the players are likely make outside of combat are saves.The "problem" is not that I am used to to running games where there are lots of rolls, and my opinion would change if only I understood that I can run a game that involves fewer rolls at more critical times.The problem is the philosophy behind the mechanics does does not suit my style of play, in part because I feel it stretches plausability. Even if only truly critical events (however you choose to establish what's critical) use the roll, the process still stretches credulity for me.If I really try, I can almost see how I could accept the die results as plausible, if I really, truly, only called for a roll when there is a clear and obvious case of logical, plausible, interesting outcomes regardless or pass or fail. Note that this is not about frequency of rolls, it's about the entire reason for rolling. But at this point, I would see the process of when to call for a die roll being at odds with the role I want for dice in the game. So, yay, you can consider yourself a winner, because maybe I would see it as plausible, it's just that you've now turned the game into something where it no longer matters if it's plausible, because I've already lost all interest anyway.I do not need to be saved. I do not need to be show how awesome fail forward is, if only I truly get it. I do not need to alter the rate at which I call for rolls. And you'll be just fine, even if I never share your views on fail forward. But, if it really matters that much to you that I agree that fail forward, when used in the way all right-thinking gamers should, is always going to be plausible, then feel free to take my comments above as proof of your rightness in this matter.  I mean, you're definitely making a lot of assumptions about which games I've run, how I've run them, and  how I would feel if I ran them differently. And you're definitely making erroneous assumptions about how often I call for rolls.</blockquote>

Verification