Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6750265" data-attributes="member: 97077">Sure, but my point is what the DC represents. You can't have a DC without the players first describing what they want to do otherwise you are putting mechanical process ahead of player input in contravention of the basic conversation of the game (Basic Rules, page 3). I submit that when you start thinking about things this way, it makes a whole lot more sense.Only if what the PCs are doing has an uncertain outcome as established by the DM. Players seeking to succeed should naturally be striving to eliminate that uncertainty as best they can while pursuing the goals of play. If they aren't trying to do that or aren't very good at it, then yeah, you're right to expect more rolls.Now, if you're a DM who subscribes to the &quot;Roll With It&quot; approach as outlined in the DMG (page 236), then more rolls are just part of that style. However, the DMG does suggest there can be a pretty significant drawback to playing this way - roleplaying diminishes as the players realize that dice, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success.I think the key thing I want to try and get across is that player input precedes and can regularly obviate an ability check. So setting a DC for a trap in a vacuum without tying it to a specific approach is saying that any approach to dealing with it has an uncertain outcome. This removes player decision-making from impacting the outcome with a possible drawback as noted by the DMG. It can also encourage players to pump their Perception as high as possible since they know their input isn't as important as their characters' stats.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6750265, member: 97077"] Sure, but my point is [I]what the DC represents[/I]. You can't have a DC without the players first describing what they want to do otherwise you are putting mechanical process ahead of player input in contravention of the basic conversation of the game (Basic Rules, page 3). I submit that when you start thinking about things this way, it makes a whole lot more sense. Only if what the PCs are doing has an uncertain outcome as established by the DM. Players seeking to succeed should naturally be striving to eliminate that uncertainty as best they can while pursuing the goals of play. If they aren't trying to do that or aren't very good at it, then yeah, you're right to expect more rolls. Now, if you're a DM who subscribes to the "Roll With It" approach as outlined in the DMG (page 236), then more rolls are just part of that style. However, the DMG does suggest there can be a pretty significant drawback to playing this way - roleplaying diminishes as the players realize that dice, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success. I think the key thing I want to try and get across is that player input precedes and can regularly obviate an ability check. So setting a DC for a trap in a vacuum without tying it to a specific approach is saying that any approach to dealing with it has an uncertain outcome. This removes player decision-making from impacting the outcome with a possible drawback as noted by the DMG. It can also encourage players to pump their Perception as high as possible since they know their input isn't as important as their characters' stats. [/QUOTE]

Verification