Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7599389" data-attributes="member: 22779">Hang on a tick.  After taking me to task repeatedly for not following the rules of the game, you don't get to then hand wave things away when you aren't following the rules.  You are claiming that this is a perfect example of goal:method.  It isn't.  It's a perfect example of a pure character challenge that the player doesn't really have a whole lot of input into.  In a goal:method approach, the character matters less (not that it doesn't matter, I agree with you on that).  Because the APPROACH is obviously important.  And it's the player that states approaches.  And, it's not about getting wrapped up in flowery language.  If the player picks an approach that the DM feels will work, regardless of how it is phrased, then it works, no check is required.  Right?  See, this is where we are talking past each other.  When I talk about gaming the DM, it's not just using a funny voice and being entertaining.  A lot of gaming the DM is knowing what the DM will and won't call checks for.  If I know that Bob the DM doesn't really call for persuasion checks (or whatever check) very often so long as I can present my case well enough, then, well, I'm not going to bother investing character resources in persuasion.For me, it tends to lead to players who expect that approaches will work and expect that challenges will be tailored to the approaches that the players use.  When the DM then decides to do something else, and suddenly those ignored stats come into play, the player gets really huffy and arguments around the table start.  Now, I'm NOT SAYING this happens in your game.  It certainly doesn't happen all the time.  But, it does happen.  And it's one weak point for goal:approach methods.  Groups that play together for a while begin to learn each other's expectations.  I mean, heck, I just had a player blow a gasket and leave the group because the DM decided to play to the weaknesses of the group.  So, yes, I know that it happens.Look, I see how you folks are doing it.  It's not exactly hard to see.  Good grief, the PHB and DMG are pretty clear about it.   I get it.  Really, honest to goodness I do.I just don't prefer to play that way.  I find that it causes more arguments than it solves, because it places the DM to much in the forefront of the game.  I am not interested in that style of game anymore and haven't been for a long time.  So, I tend to run the game far closer to a 4e style, since, well, mechanically, the skill (whoops, mistype almost wrote skilly system <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />) system is pretty much identical to 4e sans the level adjustment.  It works perfectly fine run that way since the 4e skill system was pretty loosey goosey as well.  However, in 4e, the advice was to let the players drive the system whereas in 5e, it leans more heavily on the DM.  Meh, I let it lean on the players just fine.The weakness of my approach though is that players who figure that they can just come up with different approaches or that the game will be tailored to not highlight deficiencies soon get frustrated.  And I can see how if one player comes up with a great idea for getting past the gate guard and then rolls a fail on the check can get frustrating.  Perhaps the conversation would go forward a lot better if folks would point out the weaknesses in their own approaches rather than in others.  And I am VERY MUCH including myself in that.</blockquote>

Verification