Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6200236" data-attributes="member: 2525">It's not hyperbole.&nbsp; Here, I will walk you through it.First, he made it quite clear he did not mean &quot;51%&quot; by &quot;most&quot;.&nbsp; He spelled out two (or three) types of checks, 1) &quot;you'll have reasonably trained characters succeeding most of the time&quot;, which is where &quot;most&quot; comes in.&nbsp; I'll drill down on common parlance for what &quot;most&quot; means, but that's the context for his claim.&nbsp; Then he said, &quot;and untrained characters succeeding about half the time&quot;, which is your &quot;50%&quot; type checks, which he clearly is differentiating from &quot;most&quot; type checks.&nbsp; And then he said, &quot;Hopefully the untrained characters will get some help to allow them to boost their rolls,&quot; implying that even those rolling with 50% odds will hopefully get better odds than that and fall into the &quot;most&quot; category as well.&quot;Most&quot; is not &quot;bare majority&quot; in common usage either.&nbsp; It means, &quot;greatest in amount or degree&quot; and &quot;to the greatest extent&quot;.&nbsp; If someone says &quot;He had most of the box of cookies&quot;, he does not mean, &quot;he ate just over half the cookies&quot;.I think it's pretty clear from the context there is an expectation that they will very likely succeed, and the chance of failure, while present, is not what you'd describe as a &quot;significant&quot; chance of failure.And that's the very type of situation the guidelines suggest should not involve a check.&nbsp; If the chance of failure is not &quot;significant&quot;, the game would probably work out better if you didn't interrupt the flow by calling for a check.I don't think this is a minor point.&nbsp; When to call for a check, and when not to, has a lot to do with moving things along at a pace that engages the players.&nbsp; It's one of those things where the rules get in the way of the game, if you call for checks even when there isn't a significant chance of failure.I think it's a sign that&nbsp; [MENTION=3576]am181d[/MENTION] could cut back the number of checks he's calling for in his games, and just let players succeed automatically for ability checks they're likely to succeed at anyway.&nbsp; That way, his games speed up, the player's are not taken out of the game by the rules, and when he calls for a roll it becomes far more meaningful because they know there is a significant chance they won't succeed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6200236, member: 2525"] It's not hyperbole. Here, I will walk you through it. First, he made it quite clear he did not mean "51%" by "most". He spelled out two (or three) types of checks, 1) "you'll have reasonably trained characters succeeding most of the time", which is where "most" comes in. I'll drill down on common parlance for what "most" means, but that's the context for his claim. Then he said, "and untrained characters succeeding about half the time", which is your "50%" type checks, which he clearly is differentiating from "most" type checks. And then he said, "Hopefully the untrained characters will get some help to allow them to boost their rolls," implying that even those rolling with 50% odds will hopefully get better odds than that and fall into the "most" category as well. "Most" is not "bare majority" in common usage either. It means, "greatest in amount or degree" and "to the greatest extent". If someone says "He had most of the box of cookies", he does not mean, "he ate just over half the cookies". I think it's pretty clear from the context there is an expectation that they will very likely succeed, and the chance of failure, while present, is not what you'd describe as a "significant" chance of failure. And that's the very type of situation the guidelines suggest should not involve a check. If the chance of failure is not "significant", the game would probably work out better if you didn't interrupt the flow by calling for a check. I don't think this is a minor point. When to call for a check, and when not to, has a lot to do with moving things along at a pace that engages the players. It's one of those things where the rules get in the way of the game, if you call for checks even when there isn't a significant chance of failure. I think it's a sign that [MENTION=3576]am181d[/MENTION] could cut back the number of checks he's calling for in his games, and just let players succeed automatically for ability checks they're likely to succeed at anyway. That way, his games speed up, the player's are not taken out of the game by the rules, and when he calls for a roll it becomes far more meaningful because they know there is a significant chance they won't succeed. [/QUOTE]

Verification