Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8443168" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Noted, and appreciated.I take issue with the phrasing “say the correct thing” because it implies there’s a particular “correct thing” that the players have to say to succeed automatically, which is not the case. But I think understand what you meant by it, and yes, it is possible to succeed without a check if your approach has no possibility of failure at your goal, regardless of your character stats.I think this would be a poor strategy, because you wouldn’t have the stats to serve as effective insurance against failure in the (usually quite frequent) cases where your approach can succeed or fail and has consequences for failure. In this system (which is to say, the system of adjudication I employ, not necessarily the D&amp;D 5e system), player skill and avatar strength both matter. Player skill in making good decisions that are likely to result in success, and avatar strength in helping you avoid failure when it’s a possibility. This may not be to everyone’s taste, but it works well for me and the people I’ve DMed forThis has not been my experience. Even players I have been playing with for a long time do not succeed without a check most of the time.I actually think that’s very smart play! If you’ve got the HP for it, why not utilize that resource? A great example of the intersection of player skill and avatar strength.I can’t remember the last time I actually used a contact poison trap. It’s just a convenient example like the troll that players are always using out of character&nbsp; knowledge to attack with fire, the locked door characters with unlimited time are always spending as long as it takes to pick, and the chandelier that creative players’ fighters are always swinging on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8443168, member: 6779196"] Noted, and appreciated. I take issue with the phrasing “say the correct thing” because it implies there’s a particular “correct thing” that the players have to say to succeed automatically, which is not the case. But I think understand what you meant by it, and yes, it is possible to succeed without a check if your approach has no possibility of failure at your goal, regardless of your character stats. I think this would be a poor strategy, because you wouldn’t have the stats to serve as effective insurance against failure in the (usually quite frequent) cases where your approach can succeed or fail and has consequences for failure. In this system (which is to say, the system of adjudication I employ, not necessarily the D&D 5e system), player skill and avatar strength both matter. Player skill in making good decisions that are likely to result in success, and avatar strength in helping you avoid failure when it’s a possibility. This may not be to everyone’s taste, but it works well for me and the people I’ve DMed for This has not been my experience. Even players I have been playing with for a long time do not succeed without a check most of the time. I actually think that’s very smart play! If you’ve got the HP for it, why not utilize that resource? A great example of the intersection of player skill and avatar strength. I can’t remember the last time I actually used a contact poison trap. It’s just a convenient example like the troll that players are always using out of character knowledge to attack with fire, the locked door characters with unlimited time are always spending as long as it takes to pick, and the chandelier that creative players’ fighters are always swinging on. [/QUOTE]

Verification