Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9506190" data-attributes="member: 7006">I very much agree.There is quite a difference between setting DCs in order to &quot;challenge&quot; the players in finding ways to overcome that mechanical obstacle because of whatever their character's stats are-- versus setting DCs based upon the actual fiction in the narrative and how easy or hard it would be for anyone to try and do it within the world.&nbsp; To me, the former is putting the gameplay on a pedestal and which to me is the opposite of using the RPG format to its fullest.It's the age-old question we always would see here:&nbsp; Someone would post how one of their players took every mechanical boon they could find in the game to get themselves like a +20 Perception... and they would ask us how were they supposed to &quot;challenge&quot; that player?&nbsp; As if making sure there was a chance to fail a die roll was the entire purpose of the game.&nbsp; And other people would respond with &quot;Look, if this player wants to play a character that will practically never fail a Perception check... then just go with that!&nbsp; That's who this character is within the game world.&nbsp; And it doesn't really matter whether or not they could fail.&quot;After all... so what if there's a character in the world that sees everything?&nbsp; What's the problem with that?&nbsp; It makes for an interesting story!&nbsp; This character will have so many other ways they will fail at doing things (since they put all their boons into that one Perception basket)... that it's no big deal that they won't fail in this one.&nbsp; But too many times I think that some people who put the mechanics first find that possibility of not failing to be a failure of the game itself.&nbsp; That the purpose of having a game is the possibility of failure, and if you can't get that, then it's not game at all.&nbsp; They think that a game you can't lose isn't actually a game.Which I can intellectually understand why they would think that... but emotionally I just fall back to &quot;Why are you using a roleplaying game to try and scratch that win/lose game mechanic itch?&nbsp; Why do you forsake the fact that we add a story onto these game mechanics, rather than lean into it?&quot;&nbsp; If one leans into the story-- if one assigns DCs based upon how easy or hard it is to do something in the world, rather than making sure you &quot;challenge&quot; the one player's character by setting a DC purely to give them a chance to fail a die roll-- you no longer have to keep getting annoyed at the game mechanics that were given to us.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9506190, member: 7006"] I very much agree. There is quite a difference between setting DCs in order to "challenge" the players in finding ways to overcome that mechanical obstacle because of whatever their character's stats are-- versus setting DCs based upon the actual fiction in the narrative and how easy or hard it would be for anyone to try and do it within the world. To me, the former is putting the gameplay on a pedestal and which to me is the opposite of using the RPG format to its fullest. It's the age-old question we always would see here: Someone would post how one of their players took every mechanical boon they could find in the game to get themselves like a +20 Perception... and they would ask us how were they supposed to "challenge" that player? As if making sure there was a chance to fail a die roll was the entire purpose of the game. And other people would respond with "Look, if this player wants to play a character that will practically never fail a Perception check... then just go with that! That's who this character is within the game world. And it doesn't really matter whether or not they [I]could[/I] fail." After all... so what if there's a character in the world that sees everything? What's the problem with that? It makes for an interesting story! This character will have so many other ways they will fail at doing things (since they put all their boons into that one Perception basket)... that it's no big deal that they won't fail in this one. But too many times I think that some people who put the mechanics first find that possibility of not failing to be a failure of the game itself. That the purpose of having a game is the possibility of failure, and if you can't get that, then it's not game at all. They think that a game you can't lose isn't actually a game. Which I can intellectually understand why they would think that... but emotionally I just fall back to "Why are you using a roleplaying game to try and scratch that win/lose game mechanic itch? Why do you forsake the fact that we add a story onto these game mechanics, rather than lean into it?" If one leans into the story-- if one assigns DCs based upon how easy or hard it is to do something in the world, rather than making sure you "challenge" the one player's character by setting a DC [I]purely[/I] to give them a chance to fail a die roll-- you no longer have to keep getting annoyed at the game mechanics that were given to us. [/QUOTE]

Verification