Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7614432" data-attributes="member: 6919838">I don't know if any PC has ever thought &quot;thecDC isx22...etc&quot; in my games, cuz they dont hear that. The PC is more likely considering the descriptive etc. The player may well be considering DC etc because, knowing the rules and their stars and the way I assign DCs they are trying to gauge outcomes - including their auyo-success chance.But, in 5e, I dont know if I ever assigned different DCs for different PCs except for maybe a few physical types of moves where height, weight and auto-strenggh distance for jumping or such mattered. Mostly if a PC has something not accounted for that impacts significantly it's the advantage or disadvantage that applies.I guess some folks take more time on DCs and do its an issue. Me, nah, cant think of a DC that took longer to assign than it would take me to decide &quot;no roll needed&quot;. So, really, tho it might would be so in your games, it's a well trained and quick response in mine so, none of my time lost.But really, so often the issue of rolls vs no rolls seems for some to hinge on time... its odd to me but we find often quite a bit of fun and novel swerves from the unexpected results of some rolls. I wonder if it's an outgrowth of&nbsp; &quot;checks are simple binary pass fail&quot; vs &quot;checks are not binary with lots of resolutions that can be fun and interesting&quot; thing? I imagine if even a third the ability checks- in my games were binary pass fail only we might be inclined to see them differently. As for the last bit, about the non-roll competence... well it depends. If the player of Str 18 hulk knows the shove open the door was auto because he knows the high strength net the auto-success threshold or his athletics did, that points to *his* strengths playing a role. If it's just &quot;gm says no role&quot; it's not really spotlighting anything except no roll needed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7614432, member: 6919838"] I don't know if any PC has ever thought "thecDC isx22...etc" in my games, cuz they dont hear that. The PC is more likely considering the descriptive etc. The player may well be considering DC etc because, knowing the rules and their stars and the way I assign DCs they are trying to gauge outcomes - including their auyo-success chance. But, in 5e, I dont know if I ever assigned different DCs for different PCs except for maybe a few physical types of moves where height, weight and auto-strenggh distance for jumping or such mattered. Mostly if a PC has something not accounted for that impacts significantly it's the advantage or disadvantage that applies. I guess some folks take more time on DCs and do its an issue. Me, nah, cant think of a DC that took longer to assign than it would take me to decide "no roll needed". So, really, tho it might would be so in your games, it's a well trained and quick response in mine so, none of my time lost. But really, so often the issue of rolls vs no rolls seems for some to hinge on time... its odd to me but we find often quite a bit of fun and novel swerves from the unexpected results of some rolls. I wonder if it's an outgrowth of "checks are simple binary pass fail" vs "checks are not binary with lots of resolutions that can be fun and interesting" thing? I imagine if even a third the ability checks- in my games were binary pass fail only we might be inclined to see them differently. As for the last bit, about the non-roll competence... well it depends. If the player of Str 18 hulk knows the shove open the door was auto because he knows the high strength net the auto-success threshold or his athletics did, that points to *his* strengths playing a role. If it's just "gm says no role" it's not really spotlighting anything except no roll needed. [/QUOTE]

Verification