Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8441678" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Yes, to me. Unless I say otherwise I’m talking about my own preferences. And I prefer games where we get stuff done over games where we spend a lot of table time bantering and trash talking. People are often amazed when I say I don’t have trouble meeting the 6-8 encounter adventuring day guidelines? It’s because&nbsp; I keep the game focused on the gameplay. Not to say there isn’t room for characterization - there certainly is. But we keep on-task because we don’t waste a lot of time on rolls that don’t add anything to the actual gameplay.I strongly disagree. I’m sure you’ve heard the “kill your darlings” adage. That exists because stories are better when everything in them serves a specific and necessary purpose. Sometimes that purpose is to reveal something about the characters, sometimes it’s for a bit of breathing room from the action, or a spot of comic relief or what have you, but it’s still very purposeful and important to the story.It very much isn’t. In my very first post in this thread, I said that the intent behind the advice not to call for rolls unless there’s a consequence for failure isn’t to say you should call for rolls less often, but to say you should make failure consequential more often. This has been my position the entire time.I just don’t care to argue about semantics. You now understand what I mean when I say don’t call for rolls unless there’s a consequence for failure. Sorry if you don’t like that phrasing, but as long as we understand each other I don’t see much point in arguing about my verbiage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8441678, member: 6779196"] Yes, to me. Unless I say otherwise I’m talking about my own preferences. And I prefer games where we get stuff done over games where we spend a lot of table time bantering and trash talking. People are often amazed when I say I don’t have trouble meeting the 6-8 encounter adventuring day guidelines? It’s because I keep the game focused on the gameplay. Not to say there isn’t room for characterization - there certainly is. But we keep on-task because we don’t waste a lot of time on rolls that don’t add anything to the actual gameplay. I strongly disagree. I’m sure you’ve heard the “kill your darlings” adage. That exists because stories are better when everything in them serves a specific and necessary purpose. Sometimes that purpose is to reveal something about the characters, sometimes it’s for a bit of breathing room from the action, or a spot of comic relief or what have you, but it’s still very purposeful and important to the story. It very much isn’t. In my very first post in this thread, I said that the intent behind the advice not to call for rolls unless there’s a consequence for failure isn’t to say you should call for rolls less often, but to say you should make failure consequential more often. This has been my position the entire time. I just don’t care to argue about semantics. You now understand what I mean when I say don’t call for rolls unless there’s a consequence for failure. Sorry if you don’t like that phrasing, but as long as we understand each other I don’t see much point in arguing about my verbiage. [/QUOTE]

Verification