A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Skill checks
-
That's why I really enjoy the "fail but" or "success except" mechanic were even failing still advances the plot. Maybe you get lost however stumble upon something that can help with the objective.Yeah, one of the other players in that sesh was a forever GM, he was saying how he will maybe do one big "bad roll, bad consequences", but then if it happens again something like "you go in the right direction but you twist your ankle in the brush" or "it takes twice as long" or something
-
FWIW, inconsistency is one of the things I hate the most about the game design in Elden Ring. It does not properly communicate the actual impact of stat upgrades at different levels (e.g. 39-40 vigor is a significantly higher jump than 40-41 vigor) and enemies will have resistances or weaknesses to different damage types that often feel arbitrary/poorly communicated (e.g. the Magma Wyrm, a creature that breathes fire, is more resistant to fire than the Fire Giant; Borealis, an icy dragon that breathes ice, is nearly as resistant to fire as the Fire Giant; Hero of Zamor, an icy man that shoots ice, is weak to fire). Elden Ring's design is essentially a form of trial and error that often punishes you for choosing poorly, relying instead on metagame knowledge (patterns from previous Souls games, online discourse) to patch up its shortcomings. Fun as all hell when you know what to do, but its systems are incredibly arcane for newcomers.
-
That's still not clear what you mean, all of those things are typically the results of a success. Do you mean nat 20 should always succeed? Do you mean nat 20 should always be a success with extra benefits? Do you mean nat 20 should always give you a side benefit even if it fails? You need to be more clear.
-
In casual play you can rely on veteran players to know their stats. If they're the type to lie intentionally then they can leave the table. If they're making mistakes then maybe something goes a little too easily, oh well. The best DMs i had didn't give a shit and focused on rewarding players for learning.No, you're misunderstanding, I'm not saying the *player*, I'm saying *the DM*. I'm not going to waste everyone's time at the table checking whether a 20 on the die could possibly succeed given their modifier when I can just ask them to make a roll. It's way quicker.
-
How do you create fair encounters without knowing your player's character's stats? 🤨Just because I have a sense of what modifiers are and might check during encounter building doesn't mean I have them all memorized. That's genuinely like over a hundred numbers to have memorized. Plus I can look at a sheet while building an encounter and not waste anyone's time.
-
It's a game designed around math, combat, and dungeon crawling, not around roleplaying. The objective isn't to have fun roleplaying, but to roll the right numbers to maximise damage to the enemy. Any real fun comes from ignoring the rules and homebrewing. The car might have gotten a few coats of paint over the years and maybe more ergonomic seats, but it's still the same old chassis and engine underneath. There are many games built around the concept of getting the players to have fun roleplaying, but DND has never been one of them, and if it ever became one it'd no longer be DND.
-
No, you're misunderstanding, I'm not saying the *player*, I'm saying *the DM*. I'm not going to waste everyone's time at the table checking whether a 20 on the die could possibly succeed given their modifier when I can just ask them to make a roll. It's way quicker.Ah yeah i see. A roll skips you having to sort through character sheets introducing a silent pause in the narrative to determine whether a check passively succeeds. I was a little confused by talk of character sheets because the players have them right there and they should be carbon copy with what the dm has. I meant that for checks as the DM you can save time by relying on players who you can trust to know the game and be honest, rolled or passive. I argue that a DM that asks for my stats has not yet been any less immersive for me. It takes a split second and I'll take it over railroading every time.
-
Just because I have a sense of what modifiers are and might check during encounter building doesn't mean I have them all memorized. That's genuinely like over a hundred numbers to have memorized. Plus I can look at a sheet while building an encounter and not waste anyone's time.I never mentioned having them *memorized.* I specifically said you should have a copy of their sheets. lol
-
They do if it's funny. Fails too.
-
I never mentioned having them *memorized.* I specifically said you should have a copy of their sheets. lol> Do you want me to ***check all eight of their sheets*** and all their abilities that could possibly modify their scores or just ask them to make a Blah (Foo) check check and see what the result is? It's gonna be way faster for everyone to just ask them to roll. I never said I didn't have the sheets.
-
Ah yeah i see. A roll skips you having to sort through character sheets introducing a silent pause in the narrative to determine whether a check passively succeeds. I was a little confused by talk of character sheets because the players have them right there and they should be carbon copy with what the dm has. I meant that for checks as the DM you can save time by relying on players who you can trust to know the game and be honest, rolled or passive. I argue that a DM that asks for my stats has not yet been any less immersive for me. It takes a split second and I'll take it over railroading every time.I think most people would say not letting you attempt to do something because they think your character can't possibly have enough of a bonus to do it is railroading. Again, like I said, I don't have foresight to know what the bonus might be. What if the bard decides to inspire them? What if the cleric uses guidance before? What if they have some item that gives them a bonus and they haven't written that in and just add it in the fly?
-
I think most people would say not letting you attempt to do something because they think your character can't possibly have enough of a bonus to do it is railroading. Again, like I said, I don't have foresight to know what the bonus might be. What if the bard decides to inspire them? What if the cleric uses guidance before? What if they have some item that gives them a bonus and they haven't written that in and just add it in the fly?
-
Sometimes, it's about sending a message.
-
Because I don't know what their max roll might be and it achieves them something, they gain knowledge that something is impossible for them.
-
On page 242 of the Dungeon Master Guide 2014, it describes crit successes and fails as an optional rule. As optional as multiclassing and feats.
-
I agree completely! ::: spoiler Tap for spoiler I assume you're just adding context because I don't believe dialogue has clashing ideas any longer :::I'm just disagreeing that allowing someone to roll when a 20 might not be enough is railroading.
-
> Do you want me to ***check all eight of their sheets*** and all their abilities that could possibly modify their scores or just ask them to make a Blah (Foo) check check and see what the result is? It's gonna be way faster for everyone to just ask them to roll. I never said I didn't have the sheets.Yeah; you just assumed I meant to memorize it, despite my initial comment straight up asking "don't you have your PC's sheets?"
️
-
Yeah; you just assumed I meant to memorize it, despite my initial comment straight up asking "don't you have your PC's sheets?"️>>> why did you let them roll in the first place? >> >> Because I don't have everyone's modifier for every skill, ability, saving throw, and attack ***memorized*** off the top of my head > > ***Why the hell not?*** You're the DM. Why do you not have copies of your player's character sheets?
-
I'm just disagreeing that allowing someone to roll when a 20 might not be enough is railroading.
