Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8481110" data-attributes="member: 6921763">The &quot;outcome was precisely described at the start of the action&quot; by whom?&nbsp; The player?&nbsp; The player should be indicating some idea of the goal the PC is trying to accomplish.&nbsp; But it's the DM who decides what actual outcomes are possible when the dice fall, though.&nbsp; I'm clarifying as, while I am not sure we disagree here, I am having trouble understanding what you mean or are implying here.Ok, I see now.&nbsp; This answers what I was getting at above.&nbsp; A DM can take into account the result of the dice to describe quality.&nbsp; I've argued previously that this way leads to the possibility of low rolls being described as the PC engaged in some kind of slapstick routine (not a style I want to play - but hey, if that's fun for a table, go for it) and high rolls being described as... well... &quot;You unlocked the crap out of that door!&quot; or similar.&nbsp; Those are optional flourishes, in other words.In our game, I typically will clearly lay out the stakes of ability checks so the players know what is on the line.&nbsp; They then know the success/fail states and the DC, and so can make an informed decision, as a capable adventurer, to continue with the action or not.&nbsp; I typically do not overlay the success or failure with flourishes for exceptionally high or low ability check rolls, though.&nbsp; If I ever do, it usually is to give the player an opportunity to contribute some narrative as to what something (like an acrobatic move) done really well (or really poorly) looked like.I wouldn't choose the words &quot;absolutely supported&quot; in conjunction with a lack of rules.&nbsp; But I catch your meaning.&quot;Quality of the result&quot; strikes me as potentially arbitrary in the moment depending on how one runs the game.&nbsp; I see many DMs asking for rolls without providing stakes or DCs and we're left to wonder what any given result will mean after the dice have settled.&nbsp; I personally prefer a style where the DC is announced so the players know if they've succeed or failed in the moment.&nbsp; The anticipation is in how the dice fall rather than in how the DM &quot;reads&quot; them.Another angle:&nbsp; if you want to reflect &quot;quality of the result&quot; in play, set multiple DCs ahead of time.&nbsp; I've seen this done in some published adventures where failure by 5 or more has a greater penalty, for example.I can agree with this as a rulings not rules type of approach.&nbsp; Again, if outcome flourishes described by the dice are fun for the DM and table, use 'em.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 8481110, member: 6921763"] The "outcome was precisely described at the start of the action" by whom? The player? The player should be indicating some idea of the goal the PC is trying to accomplish. But it's the DM who decides what actual outcomes are possible when the dice fall, though. I'm clarifying as, while I am not sure we disagree here, I am having trouble understanding what you mean or are implying here. Ok, I see now. This answers what I was getting at above. A DM can take into account the result of the dice to describe quality. I've argued previously that this way leads to the possibility of low rolls being described as the PC engaged in some kind of slapstick routine (not a style I want to play - but hey, if that's fun for a table, go for it) and high rolls being described as... well... "You unlocked the crap out of that door!" or similar. Those are optional flourishes, in other words. In our game, I typically will clearly lay out the stakes of ability checks so the players know what is on the line. They then know the success/fail states and the DC, and so can make an informed decision, as a capable adventurer, to continue with the action or not. I typically do not overlay the success or failure with flourishes for exceptionally high or low ability check rolls, though. If I ever do, it usually is to give the player an opportunity to contribute some narrative as to what something (like an acrobatic move) done really well (or really poorly) looked like. I wouldn't choose the words "absolutely supported" in conjunction with a lack of rules. But I catch your meaning. "Quality of the result" strikes me as potentially arbitrary in the moment depending on how one runs the game. I see many DMs asking for rolls without providing stakes or DCs and we're left to wonder what any given result will mean after the dice have settled. I personally prefer a style where the DC is announced so the players know if they've succeed or failed in the moment. The anticipation is in how the dice fall rather than in how the DM "reads" them. Another angle: if you want to reflect "quality of the result" in play, set multiple DCs ahead of time. I've seen this done in some published adventures where failure by 5 or more has a greater penalty, for example. I can agree with this as a rulings not rules type of approach. Again, if outcome flourishes described by the dice are fun for the DM and table, use 'em. [/QUOTE]

Verification