Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7584832" data-attributes="member: 16814">As I tried to explain to you yesterday, in the other thread, the result is very different on a failure.  Failed rolls have consequences, so asking for a roll that then fails means a consequence for failure is applied.  Sure, success states look similar, but the failure states for each vary greatly, so, no, it's not the same.Well, again, I explained it quite a few times in the other thread.  You, like [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] above, seem to be judging how our style works from how your play.  So, for you, you'd introduce the unbreakable door and then have players roll dice to try to break it to find out it's unbreakable.  I don't do that at all.  I'm going to straight up tell them it looks unbreakable, and, if they try, I'll narrate a failure outright with additional info like 'it doesn't even budge.'  But, here's the thing, if I introduce an unbreakable door, finding out it's unbreakable is not the point of the challenge.  It'll be part of some other challenge where it's being unbreakable is an obstacle to be overcome through other means.  The fact that dice aren't rolled to figure out the door is unbreakable is totally unimportant to my style, because the dice will be rolled on other actions that do matter to the challenge I present.  Playing in my style doesn't mean it looks just like your play only with no rolls sometimes you'd ask for rolls, it means we've prioritized the play in a slightly different way and are focusing on those situations where the dice will result in good things for the players or bad things for the players, never things that are 'eh, okay'.  There's nothing wrong with using the dice more, or letting players declare actions by picking the mechanics for their resolution -- both are presented also in the DMG -- but you really need to step outside of your comfortable play assumptions and try to look at a different style as an actually different style, not just your play with this one difference.I strongly suggest playing in a Blades in the Dark game, or a Apocalypse World game, or a Dungeon World game.  These are accessible because they maintain a number of similarities to D&D (DW, especially), but use a very different style of play.  You might get it a bit better by being shaken out of the long-term play you've always used.  I know it helped me get it, which is honestly a fairly recent thing -- in the last 3 years or so.Perfectly valid!  But, what's happening is that you're evaluating the sushi by how well cooked it is.  You can prefer cooked fish all you want -- it's delicious! -- but you can't evaluate sushi by how well cooked it is.A sentiment I heartily agree with.  As I said in the other thread, I'd be happy to stop discussing this, just please stop misrepresenting my playstyle first. Then we can get back to happy, happy gaming, each to our own style.</blockquote>

Verification