D&D General Should players be aware of their own high and low rolls?

[Charlaquin]

What they are asking for is for you is to stop suggesting they try it. They feel they've come as close as they want, and have made that clear repeatedly. You've made your point, it's been heard, they understand your position. It would be kind to honor their request. Especially because continuing to do reads like you don't trust their own self-assessment.

No, what they’re doing is insisting they know for sure they wouldn’t like it and saying I’m being rude. If they asked me to stop suggesting they try it, I would. In fact, when they said “I’m done,” I said “fair enough” and had every intention of dropping the subject. Then they and another person accused me of saying something I didn’t say, so I defended myself.

 

[Oofta]

Which is why I’ve been repeatedly acknowledging that you also might not like it if you tried it. All I’m saying is, I didn’t think I’d like it either, for the same reason you say you don’t think you would like it. Your experience might not be the same, but it seems crazy to me to think that the same couldn’t possibly happen to you.

But, see, that’s a big part of why I’m inclined to suspect you might not dislike it as much as you think you would: what I’m suggesting isn’t like 4e at all. The fact that you make this comparison makes it seem like you are getting the wrong idea of what this type of gameplay is actually like, just as I initially was.

Just asserting that "it isn't like 4E at all" is missing the point, or you need to explain further than "na-uh". The point I was making was that in 4E we gave details similar to what you are stating, the target numbers and results once we knew we had an obstacle to overcome. I'm ignoring the rest of the issues I had with skill challenges* entirely. In addition, I only mentioned 4E because it's the last time I ran into this, but I've also experimented with and experienced other styles similar to what your talking about.

I fully accept that you might not enjoy this type of play if you tried it, and I keep repeating that as well because you seem to be ignoring when I say it. All I’m saying is, the reasons you say you wouldn’t like it sound just like the reasons I thought I wouldn’t like it, and are also not really accurate to what my experience of actually playing this way has been.

I'm not ignoring it when you say it. I have tried multiple options, I know myself well enough to know what happens when someone says something like "It will be a DC 15 and it will take you 10 minutes" it has a negative effect on my enjoyment. It puts me in gamer mode and detracts from the flow of the game for me. Your ignoring what I and others have repeatedly stated is what causes the friction.

It's interesting to discuss different options, and I accept that you've found a way that works for you. I just wish you would return the favor, because every time you say "if you try it you might like it", it sounds like you don't accept my understanding of the impact your style has on others.

BTW - in no way did I intend do make you an a** by association and sorry if it sounded like that.

*skill challenges were an interesting concept and I do something similar at times, I just think they needed more work.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just asserting that "it isn't like 4E at all" is missing the point, or you need to explain further than "na-uh". The point I was making was that in 4E we gave details similar to what you are stating, the target numbers and results once we knew we had an obstacle to overcome. I'm ignoring the rest of the issues I had with skill challenges* entirely. In addition, I only mentioned 4E because it's the last time I ran into this, but I've also experimented with and experienced other styles similar to what your talking about.

I did go into specifics about how it’s unlike 4e skill challenges, several pages back, and for a few posts we were discussing that before you again reiterated that you didn’t like it in 4e.

I'm not ignoring it when you say it. I have tried multiple options, I know myself well enough to know what happens when someone says something like "It will be a DC 15 and it will take you 10 minutes" it has a negative effect on my enjoyment. It puts me in gamer mode and detracts from the flow of the game for me. You’re ignoring what I and others have repeatedly stated is what causes the friction.

I’m not ignoring that, I’m acknowledging it, and also pointing out that I used to feel the same way.

It's interesting to discuss different options, and I accept that you've found a way that works for you. I just wish you would return the favor, because every time you say "if you try it you might like it", it sounds like you don't accept my understanding of the impact your style has on others.

Notably, I’ve stopped saying “if you try it you might like it” because you’ve made it clear that language is upsetting to you. What I’ve been doing for a while know is acknowledging you might indeed not like it if you tried it, but before I tried it, my reasons for thinking I wouldn’t like it were very similar to yours.

BTW - in no way did I intend do make you an a** by association and sorry if it sounded like that.

*skill challenges were an interesting concept and I do something similar at times, I just think they needed more work.

I didn’t take it that way, but I appreciate the clarification nonetheless.

 

[overgeeked]

I find that my own blood pressure is reduced and my own enjoyment of these forums is heightened when I choose a more charitable interpretation of what someone is trying to communicate. If I am struggling to do so, I (try my best to) refrain from replying until I give myself a break and come up with a more measured response or simply decide not to respond at all.

For example, one might uncharitably interpret your reference to the "complete a**" in your first paragraph as an not-so-subtle analog to @Charlaquin. Me, I'm going to choose not to interpret it that way and go back to reading what others are saying here that might help me either 1. learn something new or 2. strengthen what I already know about my table's own desired playstyle. If you try it, you might like it.

You run into trouble when the exchange becomes:

X: “I don’t like it.” Y: “You should try it.” X: “I have.” Y: “I don’t believe you.”

Y is calling X a liar based on a difference of preference. Y is so utterly convinced of the greatness of their preference that the only options are “if you tried it you’d love it” or “if you don’t love it you’re lying about having tried it” or “if you don’t love it you didn’t do it right.”

Way to be condescending, but no. We’ve tried it. We tried it the “right” way. We still didn’t like it. We simply have different preferences.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You run into trouble when the exchange becomes:

X: “I don’t like it.” Y: “You should try it.” X: “I have.” Y: “I don’t believe you.”

Y is calling X a liar based on a difference of preference. Y is so utterly convinced of the greatness of their preference that the only options are “if you tried it you’d love it” or “if you don’t love it you’re lying about having tried it” or “if you don’t love it you didn’t do it right.”

Way to be condescending, but no. We’ve tried it. We tried it the “right” way. We still didn’t like it. We simply have different preferences.

No I think you are misreading/misinterpreting this. There is a big difference between "you are lying because if you genuinely tried it you would of course love it" and "I hear that you think you've tried it, but the way you describe it convinces me that you don't really understand what I'm saying. And that makes sense to me because I used to be exactly in your position."

You are ascribing way more arrogance/condescension than I think is warranted. They may still be mistaken, of course, but that's different from being arrogant/condescending.

 

[overgeeked]

No I think you are misreading/misinterpreting this. There is a big difference between "you are lying because if you genuinely tried it you would of course love it" and "I hear that you think you've tried it, but the way you describe it convinces me that you don't really understand what I'm saying. And that makes sense to me because I used to be exactly in your position."

You are ascribing way more arrogance/condescension than I think is warranted. They may still be mistaken, of course, but that's different from being arrogant/condescending.

I’m practically quoting this exchange:

I have not tried your way in 5E. I've experienced similar enough in 4E and previous editions for that matter to know what you're talking about.

EDIT: But I also think it's a bit presumptuous to say that we don't know ourselves well enough to know what we would like. My imagination is not so limited that I cannot possibly imagine what it would be like.

I’m not convinced you have, given the comparisons you’ve made of it, e.g. to skill challenges. Though I don’t doubt you’ve played in ways to think are like what I’m describing.

I’m not presuming. I didn’t think I’d like it either before I tried it. You think you couldn’t possibly be mistaken in the same way?

Similar exchanges are practically on a loop. Y seems to not be able to understand that X has tried it, tried it the “right” way, and still doesn’t like it. Seems to literally not compute.

 

[Charlaquin]

You run into trouble when the exchange becomes:

X: “I don’t like it.” Y: “You should try it.” X: “I have.” Y: “I don’t believe you.”

Good thing that isn’t the exchange that’s happening, then.

Y is calling X a liar based on a difference of preference. Y is so utterly convinced of the greatness of their preference that the only options are “if you tried it you’d love it” or “if you don’t love it you’re lying about having tried it” or “if you don’t love it you didn’t do it right.”

Not at all. Again, Oofta is quite open about not having tried it. They say they know they wouldn’t like it based on other things they have tried, which they think are similar, and I think are dissimilar.

Way to be condescending, but no. We’ve tried it. We tried it the “right” way. We still didn’t like it. We simply have different preferences.

Who’s we? Oofta says they haven’t tried it. You’ve tried it and you didn’t like it? Ok. That does happen sometimes; different strokes.

 

[Charlaquin]

No I think you are misreading/misinterpreting this. There is a big difference between "you are lying because if you genuinely tried it you would of course love it" and "I hear that you think you've tried it, but the way you describe it convinces me that you don't really understand what I'm saying. And that makes sense to me because I used to be exactly in your position."

You are ascribing way more arrogance/condescension than I think is warranted. They may still be mistaken, of course, but that's different from being arrogant/condescending.

Exactly.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m practically quoting this exchange:




Similar exchanges are practically on a loop. Y seems to not be able to understand that X has tried it, tried it the “right” way, and still doesn’t like it. Seems to literally not compute.

He literally said in the very post you quoted that he hasn’t tried it, but has tried something similar. To which I respond that I don’t think what he’s tried is actually similar. You know, the thing @Bill Zebub said was happening.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’m practically quoting this exchange:




Similar exchanges are practically on a loop. Y seems to not be able to understand that X has tried it, tried it the “right” way, and still doesn’t like it. Seems to literally not compute.

Funny how we read that exchange completely differently.