Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6804911" data-attributes="member: 996">Only if it's to resolve the exact same action, with the exact same character in the exact same circumstance at the exact same point in time.&nbsp; So, well, no, you could never count on that.&nbsp; It could happen, even happen quite a lot, but you could never count on it.&nbsp; You couldn't even count on getting to roll. Of course, other games, even other editions, have been more consistent. They're an optional part of the resolution system.&nbsp; The DM needn't ever call for a check.&nbsp; It'd be weird if he didn't, and players might feel a certain loss of agency and sense of participation, but it's technically possible.&nbsp; I'm hearing &quot;the DM is just too 'Empowered' in 5e.&quot;&nbsp; I don't have a lot of ammunition to shoot down that opinion, it that's what you're getting at.&nbsp; As an opinion, FWIW. The DM isn't hiding the fact that he has dice. The DM describes the environment to the players using the map as a reference.&nbsp; Not the same thing at all.You don't need to know when the DM fudges, plenty of DMs are fine letting you know that they do or might fudge in the interest of the game.&nbsp; Obviously, I wouldn't be having this discussion if I were trying to conceal it, for instance.Oh, and calling someone dishonest is insulting.&nbsp; Calling someone who posts under their real name 'dishonest' from behind the anonymity of a forum handle brings a certain irony, as well.Most games just have players.&nbsp; Many also have referees.&nbsp; In Wargaming, the referee was often called a 'judge.'&nbsp; In D&amp;D, the DM is both a referee and player, though a very different kind of player than those running PCs.&nbsp; Most other RPGs work about that way, too.&nbsp; Not many other games do.Then you reject the concept of a DM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6804911, member: 996"] Only if it's to resolve the exact same action, with the exact same character in the exact same circumstance at the exact same point in time. So, well, no, you could never count on that. It could happen, even happen quite a lot, but you could never count on it. You couldn't even count on getting to roll. Of course, other games, even other editions, have been more consistent. They're an optional part of the resolution system. The DM needn't ever call for a check. It'd be weird if he didn't, and players might feel a certain loss of agency and sense of participation, but it's technically possible. I'm hearing "the DM is just too 'Empowered' in 5e." I don't have a lot of ammunition to shoot down that opinion, it that's what you're getting at. As an opinion, FWIW. The DM isn't hiding the fact that he has dice. The DM describes the environment to the players using the map as a reference. Not the same thing at all. You don't need to know when the DM fudges, plenty of DMs are fine letting you know that they do or might fudge in the interest of the game. Obviously, I wouldn't be having this discussion if I were trying to conceal it, for instance. Oh, and calling someone dishonest is insulting. Calling someone who posts under their real name 'dishonest' from behind the anonymity of a forum handle brings a certain irony, as well. Most games just have players. Many also have referees. In Wargaming, the referee was often called a 'judge.' In D&D, the DM is both a referee and player, though a very different kind of player than those running PCs. Most other RPGs work about that way, too. Not many other games do. Then you reject the concept of a DM. [/QUOTE]

Verification