Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8377554" data-attributes="member: 7032025">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 ?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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Counters the diminishing of roleplay mentioned above.</li> </ul>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.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.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.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.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.So your argument is that they are the same ? Impressive indeed.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.Despite all what you say, it does not sound that way, since you apparently dropped situational modifiers.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'm not worried, but it's not a competition anyway, it's all about each table having fun their own way.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.</blockquote>

Verification