Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9679046" data-attributes="member: 6785785">No… I think anyone describing them as “two very different things” is exaggerating. No, a player asking if his character can search for herbs “during” the journey and a player asking after the journey has “ended” aren’t something I’d call “two very different things”. They seem quite similar. The difference is in timing… and perhaps how much time is spent at the table on them. I think many likely do. It seems to me more a side effect of wanting things to “work like they do in the real world” that makes them actually want to spend time on tedious things. Many people in this thread have even described them as such, pointing out that without such tedious bits, the exciting bits aren’t that exciting. I don’t agree with that. It seems to me an argument for the boring.  That’s 100% fine. So is skipping time and not roleplaying out minor actions or interactions. Each is a preference.All I’m doing is explaining why I have the preference that I have. I was told my preference doesn’t allow for my player to have his character search for herbs during a journey. I explained how it can support such a request. Now I’m being told that won’t work for everyone… but, so what? I don’t care if someone out there doesn’t like it… I simply said it could be done. Would you agree with me if I told you that your methods “don’t work” just because they don’t match my preferences? I very much doubt it.Well, have a whole campaign where nothing happens and then tell us what’s interesting about it. This is you imagining the GM has just introduced some unconnected thing to the fiction. But there’s no need for that. If your character is climbing a cliff and we care enough for it to involve a roll, there should be some consequence, no? So the GM would just use those details to come up with the consequence. If there’s nothing at stake, then what is the roll meant to tell us?</blockquote>

Verification