Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="feartheminotaur" data-source="post: 6884711" data-attributes="member: 6801354">I'm not going to say whether your rules are good or bad; if they work at your table, great.&nbsp; Mine are different, but then, so is my table.I do sympathize with some of the issues you have/had that lead to a couple of them.&nbsp; Players who simply roll and demand resolution based on the roll (which, I see a lot) is a pet peeve of mine.&nbsp; I prefer to counter the &quot;I rolled a 20 perception - what do I see?&quot; or &quot;I rolled a 20 persuasion, what does the chamberlain tell me?&quot; with &quot;Nothing&quot; as if the roll failed.&nbsp; It works for me and allowing an uncalled for check but treating it as an auto-fail has, IME, helped curb a lot of that sort of stuff, but I'm sure there are folks here who will claim that makes me history's greatest monster or whatever, so YMMV.And I think #6 is why you need #4, but that is just based on my experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="feartheminotaur, post: 6884711, member: 6801354"] I'm not going to say whether your rules are good or bad; if they work at your table, great. Mine are different, but then, so is my table. I do sympathize with some of the issues you have/had that lead to a couple of them. Players who simply roll and demand resolution based on the roll (which, I see a [I]lot[/I]) is a pet peeve of mine. I prefer to counter the "I rolled a 20 perception - what do I see?" or "I rolled a 20 persuasion, what does the chamberlain tell me?" with "Nothing" as if the roll failed. It works for me and allowing an uncalled for check but treating it as an auto-fail has, IME, helped curb a lot of that sort of stuff, but I'm sure there are folks here who will claim that makes me history's greatest monster or whatever, so YMMV. And I think #6 is why you need #4, but that is just based on my experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification