Dude, you said it wasn't even roleplaying or storytelling. Let's not pretend you aren't very much applying a judgement here. I find your argument to support your preference to be lacking. If it's just a preference, I have zero issues with it. Again, it's how it's argued that I'm engaging.
All of this comes from the way you describe it. To summarize, you don't care if the player makes the least effort to have a logical situation that can be described, you stopped applying circumstancial modifiers linked to player actions and descriptions and you just let the dice roll, interpreting the results.
Pray tell how this supports roleplaying and storytelling as much as an approach where everything that the players and the DM describe, in character, is taking into account and influences how the world works ?
You missed the bit after those two, labeled, conveniently, "The Middle Path," which doesn't list drawbacks. The assumption you've made, incorrectly, is that I follow the path of "Roll With It." I do not.
See above, it did not sound like it.
Moreover, it's not like there are 3 paths. There is a wide variety of approaches in between. And if the "Rolling with it" has the drawback of "roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success", the middle path also has it, although to a lesser degree.
Finally, the middle path does not have any drawbacks, but neither does it have advantages, and in particular:
- This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer
- Counters the diminishing of roleplay mentioned above.
Again, you assume I am not doing these things. Actually, I prefer to not do "the story matters" that much, instead trying to let the players determine their own story rather than play to learn mine.
Presented that way, it's a completely different matter, but looking simply at combat/stealth, what you are doing is not let the players have their stories (as their declaration do not seem to matter) but let the dices tell the story.
There's nothing bad with that, but it's a very different style of play.
As for the general style of play, my current campaign is a complete sandboxed version of Avernus, they are completely choosing their own path, it's just that, as a DM, I maintain the overall consistency of the game world, encourage heroic actions and make sure that what they decide matters more than random dice rolls.
It's a common enough phrasing that means it wasn't more restrictive than 3e. It was just more honest about how it restricted things than 3e was.
4e was extremely restrictive in terms of character design, limiting actions to a constrictive grid, etc. you can call this only "honest about it", but I'm pretty sure the whole community will convey the fact that they felt restricted by the system, whereas 3e was if anything much too open in terms of character design, leading to an explosion of stupid combos.
Don't know about Critical Role, except that it's an entertainment product by professional actors with a profit motive. That it didn't change it's winning formula says that they've intentionally shaped their presentation to do this, and not anything at all about the games. If you have a game in PF, and you move it to 5e, and it doesn't change, I am, uncharacteristically, willing to say that you might be doing it wrong. Or, rather, that it appears that you have a game and haven't changed it, despite claiming to be playing 5e or Pathfinder.
They started the game amongst friends using PF, switched to 5e when it went public, and they all say it did not change their game that much. Now, you can call them all liars, but I personally believe them as they are not playing technically and still have tons of fun, visibly, and still as friends.
But your opinion just reinforces my perception of your games as being extremely technical, and therefore less roleplaying and story-oriented. Once more, no judgement, to each table their own balance.
In a fight. Pinned down. Uh-huh, tell me more about how there's no demands on this creature's attention such that they have plenty free to focus on the pillar?
And, once more, I refer to you the opinion of the Devs, which is that WHATEVER A PC IS DOING AND NO MATTER HOW ENGAGED HE IS, A TABLE IS NOT DOING WRONG IF THEY ASSUME THAT THEY ALL KEEP TRACK OF INVISIBLE CREATURES ACROSS THE BATTLEFIELD.
Sure, go ahead and call my player unimaginative, when they come up, every round, with new and fun stories about how they attacked this time.
Again, not my words, the devs (This approach
rewards creativity). It's more creative to CREATE situations by describing what you are doing than just rolling dices and inventing explanations.
This is serious? I mean, really? You explain to me that swordplay is complex, and so you can't just give disadvantage because the fighter is doing different things, while at the same time saying that the rogue, who is even more skilled at stealth than the fighter (assuming expertise) is a very simple affair where the same thing is being done over and over without variation on ability to be varied. And this is a serious argument.
I mean, I've said you have a clear and preconceived idea about the fiction for the rogue. And I said that I anticipated a 'that's different' argument for the swordplay. You've more than delivered on your end.
So your argument is that they are the same ? Impressive indeed.
I am not. I'm saying that your reasoning for your preference is shaky and not logical -- that a simple change to allow the rogue as much leeway in explaining her hiding as you give to the fighter without hesitation will result in a different outcome. Your argument is pinned up in a preconceived notion of how the fiction works, and you will not consider other options, so you have a faulty premise for your rules argument. A non-faulty premise is "we like it like this." You do you, there are no gamer police. But, if you show up with bad arguments, expect the air to be let out from time to time.
Honestly, nothing you have said has taken my breath away. I see only a very technical game where all that is important is allowing the poor rogue is DPR compared to the nasty Champion fighter.
You say that you don't take into account the descriptions and don't care about the logic of the world, because it's all about applying the rules before looking at the situation and the story, which you used to do and have now abandonned.
I don't play "Roll With It," so nothing to deal with.
Despite all what you say, it does not sound that way, since you apparently dropped situational modifiers.
I'm terribly sorry, but your experience isn't the breadth of everything, and your characterization of my game is woefully incorrect. See, I'm not making assumptions about anything other than the topic at hand, but you seem to feel the need to decide how I play in general, and then tell me it's boring, not fun, no roleplaying, terriblebad. I'm not an exception, there's plenty of us that have rich games that don't feel the need to make the call you did. I find your approach to be the result of the GM deciding the reality and then forcing the rules to match, rather than using the rules as a tool to encourage fun stories.
From all the vocabulary that you are using, and the fact that the rules are the absolute basis of your games, you are doing something even stronger than a DM defining the reality of the game world (which is, by the way, his role: "The Dungeon Master (DM) is the creative force behind a D&D game. The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story. "). You are letting abstract rules do this for you, THEN shape the world around this. THEN allow the players to adventure in there, but they must respect the abstract rules more than the logic of the world.
Thankfully, this does not detract from the fun, as the game can be played in many different ways. And people can have fun around games that are nothing but rules, for example boardgames. All the better for you if you add roleplaying to the mix.
Still it's not my personal experience writing this (although I totally agree with it) : "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."
The rules are totally secondary to what's best about the game, in the devs' own words.
I'll put my games up against yours any day of the week for a comparison of how much roleplaying is happening.
I'm not worried, but it's not a competition anyway, it's all about each table having fun their own way.
Okay. I mean, you're terribly wrong, and leveling the judgements that you disclaimed in your first sentence, all without a shred of evidence to support it, but you do you, man. You do you.
The evidence has been provided by your own mouth, time and time again. Playing technically does not mean that there is no roleplay, by the way, or that it's wrong. But when you do a whole post to justify giving advantage every round to the rogue to up his DPR to the champion fighter, one can see where your preoccupations lie within the game.
