Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5806448" data-attributes="member: 10479">Yup, this is a huge problem with the way in which many games are adjuducated, whereby the players feel that everything in the game is transparent so that if they cannot figure out what has happened then the result of what happened must be wrong.This also speaks to the need for fewer dice rolls to be in the hands of the players, particularly in cases where the results of a failure give away as much information as the results of a success.  There should be a chance for a king, for instance, to see the hapless attempt to charm him (for the die roll to be a one with no chance of success due to the dimplomacy) but for the king to decide he is going to go with the same result but for other reasons.  Perhaps the king wishes the failed attempt to seem as if it worked so that his brother the duke will go after the diplomat and his party.  But if the player is the die roller and rolls the one, much of the motivation of that situation is laid bare.  Of course, there are countless near miss and slight success scenarios that can speak to this same problem but I describe an extreme for the sake of emphasis.The sense of success or failure in situations like a diplomacy check (or Charisma check or the like) should be in what the player wishes to assume from the resultant roleplaying, not from being able to look at how well the player rolled the die and comparing that to the roleplaying that takes place.  The player might also have a sense from how much time the PC has invested in becoming a diplomatic character but situationally looking to the die roll feels like avoiding the actual roleplaying from my own point of view.</blockquote>

Verification