No, I qualify it as being different, and not to my taste. You are the only one applying values and being judgemental here.
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.
This makes no sense to me, maybe you can explain further.
I'm not forcing anything on the rogue, I'm just creating a universe where actions have consequences and where the declaration of players have some impact on the game, rather than a game where you just roll dices.
But again,
both of these approaches are supported by the game. It's not a question of judgement, it's just that I prefer a game that corresponds to "This approach rewards creativity" rather than a game that is along the lines of "
A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."
This is straight from the DMG, by the way.
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.
I am running a game in which story matters, as well as players decision, rather than just letting dices decide, that's all.
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.
Our games have always felt natural whatever the edition, except with 4e especially at high level.
Very strange sentences here. Was it more restrictive or not ? How can it be more honest about being restrictive if it was not ? Your sentences do not make any sense.
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.
Not that much. For example, look at Critical Role, they went from PF to 5e and continued the same campaign, no worries, the tone of the campaign and the stories have not changed at all. QED.
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.
Well, of course, if they can move, it would be stupid not to do so, but the assumption has always been that they were in a fight and probably pinned down. But the two are not exclusive.
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?
Fortunately, the tastes in our group run in the same direction, so good ideas are not wasted, in particular because we don't feel constrained by rules when they get in the way of good ideas. |But this is almost another matter in itself.
Yes, because it's a silly idea, never seen in movies or books because no one would be dumb to do it or fall for it twice in a row.
It's of course up to you if you allow your players to do silly things in your game, but despite all your talk, all I hear is "the rules say so, so my rogue is entitled to it whatever the circumstances".
My judgement on this is that it's extremely harsh on a character. From my perspective, it looks like you absolutely want to favour the unimaginative rogue that mechanistically just wants his sneak attack with advantage every round, without any regards for the circumstances. Why you would like to do this, I have no idea, but you can do whatever you like in your campaign.
But I hope that you realise that, by doing this, you are completely blocking the imagination of the fighter and railroading his actions much more than with my approach.
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.
See above.
Your view of swordplay is very basic, as is your understanding of what is happening in a round. You do realise that the actions are not sequenced, and that each "attack" is not a single sword thrust ?
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.
I admit that I've only seen one Riddick movie, but I've not seen anything this dumb even there. As for Avengers, no, I've not seen something that silly in there either.
No, you are the one saying that "one size fits all" and not bothering about circumstances at all. I'm very flexible, and will adapt my resolution to any declaration made by the players or imagined by the DM. And it will be different each time if the situation warrants it, because I believe that it's more fun that way than just rolling dices all evening to rack up sneak attack damage and saying it's awesome....
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.
The DM does not tell how it works, he just explain how the WORLD works, then the story is told by players, not by just rolling dice every round the same way just because the mechanics support it, that's all.
I'm not the one saying it, the Dev say it, my friend: "A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success."
Deal with it.
I don't play "Roll With It," so nothing to deal with.
If that's what you are looking for, great, but I'm pretty sure that never happens. I've seen many of games of that kind, and it's always rolling the dices to get as much damage as possible, never seen the slightest hint of roleplay about it. And then, you might be the exception, who knows, and if that's the case and you enjoy it, it's fine, happy gaming.
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. I'll put my games up against yours any day of the week for a comparison of how much roleplaying is happening.
Indeed it is because, you know, swordplay and shooting an arrow have very little in common. It's a varied game for a varied world, and seeing things your way is just one more proof that all what matters to you is rolling a d20 and rolling damage.
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.