Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 5917218" data-attributes="member: 5143">Yes.  We used to play every week for about 20 hours a week.  Given, we played more than the average players so we saw the problem more than others.  However, every player in our group was tired of sitting there waiting for other players to finish their portion of the game.Too many times the Thief decided to "scout ahead...just for a minute" and ended up 6 rooms ahead trying to figure out a puzzle by himself without coming back and informing the rest of the party.  If we tried to contribute the DM would remind us that we weren't in the room and didn't know about the puzzle and should shut up.Sometimes it was out of the player's control.  They just wanted to open the door, see who was inside and then come back to the party...but the enemies ended up seeing them and starting a battle with them that was too far away for us to hear...so we waited for him to fight them solo.Often this involved everyone getting so bored that they wandered into the other room to watch a movie or go for food rather than wait for the solo adventure to complete.After about a year of constantly enduring these solo adventures, it became our unwritten rule that NO one wanders off by themselves.  If it's the choice between the Thief/Rogue sneaking in and poisoning them and possibly running into complications that take hours to resolve and opening the door and having the whole group charge in...we take the option that involves the whole group.There's some, certainly.  That type of extended skill resolution wasn't part of any of the earlier editions of D&D, however.  We used as many skill checks as the DM deemed necessary to complete something...so in a way it was an extended skill check.  But often the penalty for failing these types of challenges is something like "They spot you and a battle starts".  So, there's no REAL penalty for failing since the option you had to begin with was to start a battle OR to sneak in.  Failing just means you go back to the other option.Those things can be fun to do as well.  But depending on the edition and what powers you get...it can often seem a lot less....I still have to use the word "glorious" to use a Sneak check followed by a Thievery check to put poison into someone food than to leap over their head, stab them in the back, tumble to the other side of the room and cut off someone's head while blinding another person with the vial of poison only to stab them through the heart.If you want people dead...one seems like it takes a lot more skill and is more genuinely exciting.  Plus it seems less underhanded and sneaky.  Good aligned characters may already have issues with doing it the "sneaky" way, because it isn't fair to your enemies.I know most of our groups would argue based entirely on "I don't want to watch him poison a bunch of people, that's boring as crap for me." and when that didn't sway the Rogue they'd argue their character objected to poisoning people on moral grounds and they should just face them head on.But it all (mostly) comes from a desire to not split the party.</blockquote>

Verification