Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9260902" data-attributes="member: 7006">I use the Alternative Ability Score variant rule first of all-- just wanted to start with that.&nbsp; I also tend to assume every character succeeds on what they are trying to do to a certain extent... and when I ask for ability checks (plus applicable skill) it usually tends to be for gaining additional information or success on top of what they've already gotten.Now that will seem odd to some people when I say that... that the players are successfully getting stuff without needing to make checks... but here's my way of thinking from my perspective:&nbsp; I give out information to the players freely all the time-- all part of my descriptions.&nbsp; I describe the situation in front of them, and just by doing that the PCs have ostensibly &quot;succeeded&quot; on any number of invisible checks-- ones that didn't require rolls.I describe an altar in a chamber.&nbsp; How do they know it is an 'altar' and why did I call it that?&nbsp; Because they succeeded whatever invisible Religion check would have been necessary to know it was an altar, and I just handed that info to the players free of charge.&nbsp; And now that the first level of info is out of the way... they are free to ask if there is any more info to be gained through any number of other checks-- and depending on the quality of the check I will give out additional info.&nbsp; And what this does is that it gets ME out of the mindset of saying &quot;Oh well, you rolled a '2', you failed&quot;... but instead thinking of it as &quot;You gained no additional information over what you had already successful gained just by me describing the situation to you.&quot;&nbsp; In other words, the PC were already great... they just weren't superb in this particular instance.And that way of thinking-- no PC ever truly &quot;fails&quot;, they just don't succeed further than the baseline foundation of success that they got through how the scene has been presented... changes our player and DM dynamic.&nbsp; My players tend to be more interested in trying things because they know I'm not going to &quot;enjoy it&quot; when they roll poorly as though it's a Me vs Them situation and I get to cackle when they &quot;screw up&quot;... but rather that they know I WANT to give them more help and success, but will only do so if their PCs roll well enough to get it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 9260902, member: 7006"] I use the Alternative Ability Score variant rule first of all-- just wanted to start with that. I also tend to assume every character succeeds on what they are trying to do to a certain extent... and when I ask for ability checks (plus applicable skill) it usually tends to be for gaining additional information or success on top of what they've already gotten. Now that will seem odd to some people when I say that... that the players are successfully getting stuff without needing to make checks... but here's my way of thinking from my perspective: I give out information to the players freely all the time-- all part of my descriptions. I describe the situation in front of them, and just by doing that the PCs have ostensibly "succeeded" on any number of invisible checks-- ones that didn't require rolls. I describe an altar in a chamber. How do they know it is an 'altar' and why did I call it that? Because they succeeded whatever invisible Religion check would have been necessary to know it was an altar, and I just handed that info to the players free of charge. And now that the first level of info is out of the way... they are free to ask if there is any more info to be gained through any number of other checks-- and depending on the quality of the check I will give out additional info. And what this does is that it gets ME out of the mindset of saying "Oh well, you rolled a '2', you [B]failed[/B]"... but instead thinking of it as "You gained no additional information [I]over[/I] what you had already successful gained just by me describing the situation to you." In other words, the PC were already great... they just weren't [I]superb[/I] in this particular instance. And that way of thinking-- no PC ever truly "fails", they just don't [I]succeed further[/I] than the baseline foundation of success that they got through how the scene has been presented... changes our player and DM dynamic. My players tend to be more interested in trying things because they know I'm not going to "enjoy it" when they roll poorly as though it's a Me vs Them situation and I get to cackle when they "screw up"... but rather that they know I WANT to give them more help and success, but will only do so if their PCs roll well enough to get it. [/QUOTE]

Verification