Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8377178" data-attributes="member: 7032025">I'm sorry, but you are not reading his posts. He even quoted the drawback of my approach (which is the opposite one, &quot;ignoring the dice&quot;): &quot;A downside is that no DM is completely neutral. A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if they send the game in a direction he or she doesn’t like.&quot;The way I understand it, he just rolls normally and has stopped bothering about circumstances, getting some a posterior explanation. Which is fine but is exactly what &quot;rolling with it&quot; does, with the positive and negative sides.On the other hand, I'm almost completely on the other side of the spectrum, where &quot;the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so.&quot;So I will listen to the declarations of all sides and will take everything into account, maybe rolling the dice, maybe not, but if there is a roll, it will be heavily influenced by the decisions taken. It also has positive and negative sides.No judgement there, but the consequences of which are fairly well detailed by the devs, that's all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8377178, member: 7032025"] I'm sorry, but you are not reading his posts. He even quoted the drawback of my approach (which is the opposite one, "ignoring the dice"): "A downside is that no DM is completely neutral. A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if they send the game in a direction he or she doesn’t like." The way I understand it, he just rolls normally and has stopped bothering about circumstances, getting some a posterior explanation. Which is fine but is exactly what "rolling with it" does, with the positive and negative sides. On the other hand, I'm almost completely on the other side of the spectrum, where "the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so." So I will listen to the declarations of all sides and will take everything into account, maybe rolling the dice, maybe not, but if there is a roll, it will be heavily influenced by the decisions taken. It also has positive and negative sides. No judgement there, but the consequences of which are fairly well detailed by the devs, that's all. [/QUOTE]

Verification