Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 8471624" data-attributes="member: 97077">Not when the player gets to decide how the character reacts to the orc. It's certain.When it comes to resolving whether the orc intimidates the PC, there is no roll. If we're trying to say how intimidating the orc looks, that's just description. No roll. Use your words.The DM can absolutely call for an ability check to see if the PC intimidates the orc, if the DM determines the result is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. When it's the orc trying to intimidate the PC, that is not the case because the result is certain.You can do that, but it's not supported by the rules. So I don't do that in addition to finding it to be unnecessary since the player decides based on my description how they want the character to act.The burden of proof that the rules support playing this way is on you for that assertion. I showed the rules that underwrite my assertions. Outside of &quot;play however you want,&quot; which is true.If you're running a game where some amount of rolls are made simply for color, it's harder for the players to decide where and when to spend resources that may affect the roll. You say they can just ask, but in a game like mine, you don't have to - all rolls are consequential. That strikes me as both supported by the rules and simply easier at the table.As well, why would I want to be advising players on how to spend their resources? That's a meaningful decision for them to make on their own (or along with their fellow players). I'm there to describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions, sometimes calling for rolls to resolve uncertainty when there's a meaningful consequence for failure. I'm not there to tell them how to play their characters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 8471624, member: 97077"] Not when the player gets to decide how the character reacts to the orc. It's certain. When it comes to resolving whether the orc intimidates the PC, there is no roll. If we're trying to say how intimidating the orc looks, that's just description. No roll. Use your words. The DM can absolutely call for an ability check to see if the PC intimidates the orc, if the DM determines the result is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. When it's the orc trying to intimidate the PC, that is not the case because the result is certain. You can do that, but it's not supported by the rules. So I don't do that in addition to finding it to be unnecessary since the player decides based on my description how they want the character to act. The burden of proof that the rules support playing this way is on you for that assertion. I showed the rules that underwrite my assertions. Outside of "play however you want," which is true. If you're running a game where some amount of rolls are made simply for color, it's harder for the players to decide where and when to spend resources that may affect the roll. You say they can just ask, but in a game like mine, you don't have to - all rolls are consequential. That strikes me as both supported by the rules and simply easier at the table. As well, why would I want to be advising players on how to spend their resources? That's a meaningful decision for them to make on their own (or along with their fellow players). I'm there to describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions, sometimes calling for rolls to resolve uncertainty when there's a meaningful consequence for failure. I'm not there to tell them how to play their characters. [/QUOTE]

Verification