Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jefe Bergenstein" data-source="post: 5466355" data-attributes="member: 31506">Frankly, that sounds better than the &quot;woo me&quot; style of DM'ing. Why not do away with the dice entirely, and just have them describe their attacks, and if you approve, they get to hit, and if they dont, they miss?&nbsp;Dice are what separates the game from &quot;guns&quot; kids play, where one yells &quot;Bang! I hit you&quot;, and the other yells &quot;no you didnt&quot;. Certain styles of DM's seem to crave the ability to say &quot;no you didnt&quot; just based on their position in the DM chair alone. The rules provide structure to assist in adjudicating that. &nbsp;IMO, the end result of a skill roll should typically outweigh the player's description of said action, be it an attack, hide or diplomacy check. If someone gives a masterful description, but rolls poorly, the end result is they dont hit, hide, or persuade the king. Perhapd their opponent was lucky, perhaps a patrol rounds the corner unexpectedly, perhaps the local reeve is in a foul mood or tired of hearing honeyed words of people day after day.&nbsp;I'm all for giving a circumstaqnce bonus for effort, but really, role playing should be its own reward. Its why I DM, because I get to jump into lots of different personalities, not because I need to hold 5 others captive to my whims every week.&nbsp;Some DM's havent moved past the whole &quot;guess what I'm thinking/tell me what I want to hear/one true way&quot; petty tyrant DM'ing of yesteryear. If you hve rules for skills, use em. Those players willing to engage the game more are likely getting mroe out of the experience anyways. Skill challenges are far from perfect and could use a re-do, but skill checks free me from having to over analyze myself for bias and just sit back and enjoy the game more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jefe Bergenstein, post: 5466355, member: 31506"] Frankly, that sounds better than the "woo me" style of DM'ing. Why not do away with the dice entirely, and just have them describe their attacks, and if you approve, they get to hit, and if they dont, they miss? Dice are what separates the game from "guns" kids play, where one yells "Bang! I hit you", and the other yells "no you didnt". Certain styles of DM's seem to crave the ability to say "no you didnt" just based on their position in the DM chair alone. The rules provide structure to assist in adjudicating that. IMO, the end result of a skill roll should typically outweigh the player's description of said action, be it an attack, hide or diplomacy check. If someone gives a masterful description, but rolls poorly, the end result is they dont hit, hide, or persuade the king. Perhapd their opponent was lucky, perhaps a patrol rounds the corner unexpectedly, perhaps the local reeve is in a foul mood or tired of hearing honeyed words of people day after day. I'm all for giving a circumstaqnce bonus for effort, but really, role playing should be its own reward. Its why I DM, because I get to jump into lots of different personalities, not because I need to hold 5 others captive to my whims every week. Some DM's havent moved past the whole "guess what I'm thinking/tell me what I want to hear/one true way" petty tyrant DM'ing of yesteryear. If you hve rules for skills, use em. Those players willing to engage the game more are likely getting mroe out of the experience anyways. Skill challenges are far from perfect and could use a re-do, but skill checks free me from having to over analyze myself for bias and just sit back and enjoy the game more. [/QUOTE]

Verification