D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[James Gasik]

if you can just retry as often as needed, why even place the obstacle, just do not roll at all...

That's exactly what I said. If you can retry as often as needed, there's no need to roll.

What the purpose of take 20 is, therefore, is to let you succeed at a cost of time, but this is dependent on time being a valuable resource.

 

[Hussar]

I didn't think this example of play had anything to do with players being unreasonable.

You’re right. It wasn’t unreasonable. The Dm screwed up, didn’t account for what the characters could do, and instead of throwing up roadblocks, lets them succeed.

 

[Faolyn]

one is not like the others

One of the city names has two words in it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm going to question where that apology is coming from though

I was speaking about how you generally refer to the DM/Player dynamic, not just your recent posts on this thread, and I apologized for two reasons: 1) I felt that you might not enjoy being called out, or being characterized in a certain way; And 2) I'm Canadian.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

One of the city names has two words in it.

That, and Belgium is not a City.

 

[Faolyn]

That, and Belgium is not a City.

 

[tetrasodium]

I was speaking about how you generally refer to the DM/Player dynamic, not just your recent posts on this thread, and I apologized for two reasons: 1) I felt that you might not enjoy being called out, or being characterized in a certain way; And 2) I'm Canadian.

In the tens of pages you've been active on this I don't think I've once seen that you acknowledge you've been calling for compromise between an absolute and a it depends on the state of the world. You are substituting the im thread discussion and literal positions people are actually making in the thread with some nebulous "DM/Player dynamic".

 

[Hussar]

if you can just retry as often as needed, why even place the obstacle, just do not roll at all...

Presuming of course you can actually succeed. If that lock is just that difficult (to pull a completely random example out of the air) that your bonus will not let you succeed, then Take 20 simply tells the player that, nope, they can't do this.

Again, 5e has largely folded this into the game - DM's are supposed to just let players succeed in cases where there is no real time dependence and no real chance of failure. I just wish it was made a LOT more explicit because I run into a lot of DM's who insist "there must be a chance of failure" and force rolls.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

In the tens of pages you've been active on this I don't think I've once seen that you acknowledge you've been calling for compromise between an absolute and a it depends on the state of the world. You are substituting the im thread discussion and literal positions people are actually making in the thread with some nebulous "DM/Player dynamic".

This is something that happens a LOT, I'm afraid - I don't understand what you are saying to me.

What is it that you want me to acknowledge?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It was one of the best. If there is no time pressure and no consequence of failure, why roll 20 times? 5e makes it simpler: just assume you eventually do it.

It is not about letting players win. It is about the mindset of tryong to tell astory together. Which means even though you design challenges, you hope the players will not fail.

This really depends on whether or not the real goal is to "tell a story together" rather than set PCs loose in an imaginary world and see what story emerges from their actions and reactions. In that scenario, you generally don't want to just succeed.