NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8506178" data-attributes="member: 82106">I didn't say anything about a DM that 'never says no'. Nor do I understand how your 'therefore' follows from anything. Depictions of both success and failure are quite possible. For instance, the wizard decides to buy a new robe and haggles with the shopkeeper on the price. The GM could narrate any of a number of results, it could just be left up to the player to decide what the result is, that's one option, but only one of many.First of all, I don't agree that players and GMs are on 'different sides', it isn't a competitive game, so IME there really is not such an incentive. But again, it has to be AGREED that nothing is at stake. Nobody is putting one over on anyone else, you are simply stuck thinking about RPGs as nothing but Gygaxian challenge play. While its a legitimate way to play, it is FAR from being the only way even 5e is clearly envisaged to be played.First I would ask whether or not this is a situation where nothing is at stake. It doesn't SEEM to me like it is... I mean, lets imagine that it is such a situation, then regardless of any of these rolls the PCs will take what they are after from this house, right? So why are we wasting our time rolling dice here? Again, if there's some reason why some minor damage, or some hesitation due to poor stealth IS important, then some kind of stakes have been introduced. I don't generally think that situations where there are stakes are usually best run as 'free role-play', they probably should include checks, or at least determinations that a check isn't required in a given situation because, for example, the PC can just try again, etc.As I say, the players and the GM are not two different sets of interests, D&D can include some challenging of players by GMs, but the two parties are not at odds in any fundamental way. And to reiterate, if nothing really is at stake, then any rolling is meaningless anyway, definitionally.Well, I don't think that later caveat is particularly justified, why would the character know? Anyway, again, there's no 'contest' here. Is doing something that offers no risk at all interesting? I mean, I have really not seen very many players in my time who really want uninteresting play... If a given situation happens to have no stakes, it is probably a very minor plot point, at best. Really the only time something like this generally comes up at all is when the players and GM are 'setting up' something (IE its basically a cut scene or even a flashback that acts to explain or add color to some later events that are taking place in the immediate time frame, etc.). Why would anyone run a game where no challenges exist, its really not an issue that even needs addressing IMHO. Where I think these techniques REALLY are interesting, is more in terms of focusing play on aspects that are most engaging to the players, and DO offer real challenge. So, we need an explanation of where the PCs got 'the key', it can simply be provided by saying something like "Oh, you stole it from that poorly guarded temple of Lir down the road." Nobody needs to play that out, its just color. If it is played out at all it would maybe be a scene where some other interesting information is revealed or foreshadowed, something like that.</blockquote>

Verification