Wow. I leave for two days, and that's what I find when I come back? A bunch of story gaming "let the players edit the dungeon" bullshit?

Good Lord. Unbelievable.

Quote from: Benoist;427610Wow. I leave for two days, and that's what I find when I come back? A bunch of story gaming "let the players edit the dungeon" bullshit?

Good Lord. Unbelievable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icr14tvxdNs

Quote from: Benoist;427610Wow. I leave for two days, and that's what I find when I come back? A bunch of story gaming "let the players edit the dungeon" bullshit?

Good Lord. Unbelievable.

Quote from: Peregrin;427611http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icr14tvxdNs

I believe you two mutually win the thread.

Quote from: Glazer;427586Blimey, that's a data dump and no mistake. I'm afraid you'll need to explain in simpler terms why people can only belong to one segment, because I'm not getting it from the link.

Assuming we're talking about how the actual data was used, and not some model or theory, then the cluster method would basically amount to creating a scatter diagram in n-dimensional space and then looking for bunches of dots that cluster together. This is hard to imagine visually if n > 3, of course, but it can be done numerically and, furthermore, you may be fortunate enough to identify a small subset of variables that govern the major breakdown of clusters.

The value is largely in identifying the "lumpiness" of the data and developing imputed "groups". If Strategic-Tactical is really a value scale, i.e., measuring your relative interest in Strategic vs. Tactical--and if the same's true of Story vs. Combat--then the data (allegedly) say that there's a cohesive group of people who are into tactical combat, and not so many people who are into tactics but equally interested in combat & story. The same (allegedly) is true for the centers of each of three other quadrants, and then finally a group whose interests are balanced along both axes.

Allegedly, someone might be equally interested in combat & story. But these people tend also to be equally interested in strategic & tactical focus. The "clusters" are imputed identities, basically shorthands for a set of correlations. By definition, you can't be part of more than one cluster, if the clusters were observed as such. Whereas, if there wasn't any pattern to people's interests, there wouldn't be any observable clusters. Or if there was basically a normal distribution of interests on each axis, but no correlation between them, then you'd just have a single cluster in the middle of the graph.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;427497No- what I can't do is "ruin" this battle.

I think such people need to explain how it "ruins" the battle.  If the GM knows how the battle is going to turn out, they can write it up and send me the story while I go find an actual role-playing game to play in.

The people in my group, many of whom also GM, have had great fun playing through what amounted to shooting fish in a barrel, either because a plan worked out or because of luck.  

From the New Yorker article about Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto that I posted a link to earlier:

Quote from: ArticleMiyamoto recognizes that there is pleasure in difficulty but also in ease, in mastery, in performing a familiar act with aplomb, whether that be catching a baseball, dancing a tango, doing Sudoku, or steering Mario through the Mushroom Kingdom, jumping on Goombas and Koopa Troopas. His games strike this magical balance between the excitement that comes from facing new problems and the swagger from facing down old ones. The consequent sensation of confidence is useful, in dealing with a game's more challenging stages, but also a worthy aim in itself. "A lot of the so-called 'action games' are not made that way," Miyamoto told me. "All the time, players are forced to do their utmost. If they are challenged to the limit, is it really fun for them?" In his own games, Miyamoto said, "You are constantly providing the players with a new challenge, but at the same time providing them with some stages or some occasions where they can simply, repeatedly, do something again and again. And that itself can be a joy."

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;427497No- what I can't do is "ruin" this battle.

So I let it go. But I never let that guy GM for me again.

That's what should happen.

Quote from: RSDancey;427537Objection:  

DM wants to hide/obfuscate some feature of an encounter area.  Player editing of the space could contradict the DMs plan.

Response:

How much of this is metagaming and how much is immersion?  Are you asking your PLAYERS to discover, by trial and error, question & response, the clue that is available, or do you think that the CHARACTERS really wouldn't notice if they were in the space?

For me, as player or GM, it's a matter of immersion.  Yes, there are times when the characters wouldn't notice, may not notice, or might not notice without explicitly looking for it.

Going back to your spider in the web example, the characters would almost certainly notice the spider if they took enough time to thoroughly search the room, might notice the spider immediately if they took a good like at the web, and probably wouldn't notice the spider if they didn't bother to keep looking up until it moved.  As such, I'd say "Take-20" for a thorough search (take the good and bad but succeed automatically), roll for a deliberate glance at the web, and say "No, you don't spot the spider until it attacks" if the characters ignore the web.  At some level, if the characters always notice the spider, it will never get a surprise attack on them, which seems pretty silly, doesn't it?

Quote from: RSDancey;427537A: The absence of a thing is meaningful.  In this case, a player editing something into the encounter accidentally negates a part of the DMs setup.  Telling this player they cannot perform the edit reveals the sensitive nature of the edit and "gives away" all or part of a puzzle.

The problem isn't that the edit gives something away.  The problem is that the edit is wrong because of information that the players are not aware of.  In other words, facts of the setting can be established without entering the "narrative".  You seem to be arguing that setting details and facts don't exist until spoken and that's wrong on two levels.  It's wrong on a literal level because the GM (or, heck, even the author if the group is using a published book or adventure) may have established details and facts during the preparation of the game.  But it's also wrong on a conceptual level.  As a player or even GM, I want to feel as if the setting is a real place rather than a malleable pile of clay that can be molded at whim like the dreamscape in Inception.  This is one of the reasons why I don't like recycled NPCs, even if the GM has recycled an NPC with a different group and I find out by talking to someone in the other game.  It damages the illusion for me.  And allowing or even expecting me to edit the setting not only makes the setting less real for me but reminds me of something I don't want to be reminded of.  It's like having to watch the cow go through the stun line, butcher, and meat grinder before I can eat a hamburger.  Sure, that's how hamburgers are made, but it's not something I want to dwell on while I'm eating one.

Back to GM preparation, and I say this as someone whose first games with role-playing rules had no GM, a primary value of the GM or referee is to provide logical cohesiveness to the setting and to manage the mechanations going on in the setting that are outside of the site of the PCs but would exist if the world were a real place.  If you undermine that and let anyone edit the setting without a referee or manager, then you might as well just do away with the GM entirely, but that would mean losing the valuable purpose that they serve in the game.

Quote from: RSDancey;427537For problems of type A, check your assumption again that the CHARACTERS wouldn't notice the absence.

If I think the players aren't noticing something that their characters would notice, I'll tell the players.  But that's not what I'm talking about and that's not always the case.  There are plenty of things people don't notice, particularly if no motion is involved.  It's quite possible to hide in plain site when not moving, which is why rabbits, deer, and other herbivores freeze when they spot a threat.  Yes, it can work and it can work for a giant spider lurking in a web above a dungeon room, too.

Quote from: RSDancey;427537The example of the gelatinous cube-cleaned encounter area is a pretty good one.  Would the CHARACTERS not notice that instead of the "funk of a thousand years", the room is spotless?  It's totally OK in my opinion to call a do-over. "Players, I forgot to tell you a piece of information your characters would know - this area seems much cleaner than the rest of the dungeon so far.  There's no dirt or debris in this area." (Just don't make it a habit, or your players will go right back to the Socratic Method of roleplaying.)

It depends on the detail.  The extremes are easy.  There is a middle ground that's not so easy.  Whether a half-burned torch might be in the room depends a great deal on who was there last, which a GM might know.  And that goes back to the GM knowing things that the players don't, which is pretty much the whole point of differentiating the two going back to the war games where referees handled double-blind movement.

Quote from: RSDancey;427537Second, would refusing the edit convey meaningful information in a positive way?  "You try to scoop up some dust, but are surprised to find that the floor is cleaner than you expected."  To me, this is great gaming - the players have done something rational, the DM has conveyed information that they got from that action, but the players are still expected to figure out what to make of the information.  This is essentially Fallout; the character failed the challenge, but came away with something valuable anyway.

You can do a lot of things.  That's one of the problems with game theory discussions is that people confuse what people can do with what's easiest for them and what they want to do.  Can I come up with some way to say "no" that's not saying "no"?  Of course I can.  But why am I jumping through hoops if I just want to say "no"?  And that's the problem with making it a hard rule and prohibiting the GM from saying "no".  What purpose does it serve other than to constrain the GM and make them jump through hoops?

Quote from: RSDancey;427537Third, be flexible.  How damaging is the edit, really?  Is it reasonable that the Cube can't get into this space for some reason?  Is it necessary that this particular Cube cleans down to the bare stone?  Could the Cube be easily swapped out for some other creature that doesn't cause areas to be cleaned?  What if the characters never find the Cube anyway - does it really exist in the first place?  It's part of the DMs job to react on the fly to the things the PCs do, within reason.

It depends on the situation.  But the point is that the GM already knows the answer to the question.  There is no uncertainty (roll dice) and no reason to say "yes" (the GM knows the answer is "no"), so why is the GM prohibited from giving the answer if the answer is "no"?  The GM may not have even planned out the details beforehand.  They might be able to answer simply because they have a very sharp image of the situation in their mind and are answering from that mental image.  Setting details can exist before they are spoken.

Quote from: RSDancey;427537You've got to have more tools in your toolbox than DM fiat.

The problem is that you are taking all of the hammers out of the toolbox for everyone's protection and I'm left hammering nails with a screwdriver or wrench when all I really need is a hammer.

Quote from: RSDancey;427537B:  The presence of a thing is meaningful.  In this case, a player editing something into the encounter accidentally negates a resource challenge planned by the DM.  Telling this player they cannot perform the edit either causes an anachronism (the edit is reasonable, ergo the refusal is DM fiat), or it gives away a clue (the edit is reasonable, but the refusal reveals that the DM wants the edit to represent a resource challenge), or it represents a magic bullet (the DM is surprised by the edit and the scenario didn't anticipate it, reducing or negating what would otherwise be a meaningful challenge seemingly "on accident").

That's a problem.  It's not the only problem.  The point is that the detail can already be established by the GM (or by a setting or adventure author) even before the players know about it.  What's hurt by letting them change it?  What's hurt by letting everyone in the kitchen cook dinner at the same time?

Quote from: RSDancey;427537On the whole, these seem like fairly technical concerns which are really straw-men arguments against a perceived loss of DM control.  I suspect that in practice, few if any of these things would prove to be unfixable either in realtime, or in-between sessions with the DM reworking minor parts of the plan.

Ryan, I consider myself primarily a player.  I really don't enjoy GMing all that much.  In fact, I consider it a sort of penance so the other GMs in my group can be players in the same games together and get a break.  But whether I'm a player or a GM, I want the setting to feel like a real place and anyone, player or GM, who edits details of the setting for metagame reasons risks collapsing my suspension of disbelief if I notice it.  And mechanics that formalize and even require such metagame consideration of the game guarantee that I notice it.  So I'm not defending the traditional GM because I envision myself in that role and don't want anyone usurping my power.  I'm defending the traditional GM because that's what I want to pay under.  See your next point.

Quote from: RSDancey;427537Objection:

The players wish to suspend their disbelief and engage with the game as if the game world were real; interacting with it without any editing function whatsoever.

Response:

Character Actors love this kind of experience.  Its like following a script:  You do and say such and such, the other actors do what they're expected to do, and the story emerges as a result.  But those players are on their way out of the hobby; reframing D&D to avoid their particular concerns is a mistake.

It's not like following a script at all.  It's like living life.  And I'm not convinced (nor have you proven) that such players are on their way out of the hobby.  Why?  Because MMORPG game words don't act like real places because the objects in them can only do what they are programmed let you do.  Maybe you can pick up the chair in a bar and break it.  And maybe breaking it will give you a chair leg that you can use as a weapon.  And maybe you can burn the chair because it was made of wood.  But can you play stickball with the leg?  Can you you roll the chair leg under the feet of another character to make them trip?  I can go on and on with examples like that.  Even if I grew up wrestling the interfaces of MMORPGs so I didn't find it annoying, the computer is only going to allow me to do a fraction of what a human GM could imagine and that is going to be true until long after we are both dead.  

Quote from: RSDancey;427537This is also really a continuum argument, not a binary argument.  As much as some might like it, the DM is not a virtual world simulator, and isn't able to actually pre-build a world and then allow players to interact with it.  

DMs are CONSTANTLY making up responses to player input.

Correct.  And that's where human beings excel over computers.  To put it in terms you might appreciate, computer games say "no" if they don't know how to handle what you want to do.

Quote from: RSDancey;427537This is really a question of AGENCY.  WHO is doing the editing?  The Player, or the DM?  If, in order to enjoy the game, you have to feel totally disempowered, relying on the DM to make each and every decision about the world, you're asking for a game where the Storyteller Players are going to be extremely frustrated and unhappy, and the Thinkers are going to rathole the group regularly as they plumb the depths of what the DM will and will not allow, searching for the limits to the problem domain.

I used to play with quite a few casual players.  You might even call them passive players.  They were totally in the game for the story unfolding around their characters but had zero interest in making the story happen.  Are those players accounted for in your segments?  Based on what I've seen, quite a few groups seem to have one or two players like that, even if they are the SO or spouse that tags along to play.  Do they want to be asked, "Why did your character fumble?"  I don't think so.  I think casual players are largely ignored by the theory crowd and online message boards but I think they are an important bit of glue in the social element of the hobby because if an SO, spouse, or friends who don't take gaming all that seriously can play, it's more likely that the social group will chose gaming as an activity.  If they feel left out, it's more likely that they'll suck the gamers into doing something else with them that they do enjoy.

Quote from: RSDancey;427537On the other hand, if YOU wish to ask the DM to shoulder that load, but don't require the other players at the table to relinquish their right to edit, you have preserved your own illusion of virtuality without limiting your friends' desires to contribute differently.  This is really an issue of selfish vs. selfless playstyle.

To some degree, I'm fine with that, but it depends on why the other players edit.  If they care about verisimilitude, again, that's fine.  If they start making edits that damage verisimilitude and break my suspension of disbelief, then it's just as much of a problem as a player creating a character named Sir Barney the Purple of Dinosaurus.  

Quote from: RSDancey;427537And if you really can't be happy unless you're in a virtualized world where the players have no editing powers whatsoever, well, the current genration of MMOs is really extremely good at that kind of experience....

Yes, the current MMOs are very good at that but there are things that they aren't good at, which is why I think it may be premature to write off the character actors.  I have no doubt that some of them will find something appealing in MMORPGs just as I'm sure some Storytellers are satisfied by the amusement park games that have a plot that they players play through.  \

Quote from: RSDancey;427574The Storytellers & the Thinkers share a long-term view of play.  The Character Actors and the Power Gamers share a short-term view of play.  In a world where the core TRPG audience consists of Storytellers and Thinkers, the balance of design should shift to reward this long-term perspective, and reduce the need for and impact of short-term perspective.  (Please don't convert that into "get rid of", "reduce" is a long way from "remove".)

And I'm still left wondering why, if you believe this, you'd embrace conflict resolution mechanics like those in Dogs in the Vineyard, which are extremely tactical and fiddly as opposed to focusing on the long range in terms of planning and direction.

Quote from: RSDancey;427574There was a time when a lot of D&D players engaged in robust long-term play.  Back when they were playing characters who expected to hold land, build structures, and engage in substantial activity outside the adventure.  3E doesn't support much of that, and 3.x never spent much time on it at all.  So this may in fact be more of a call to redress a decade's mistaken imbalance in perspective, rather than (for this one point) a fundamental redesign of the game outright.

And you can do it without alienating the existing segments, too.  And this goes back to my point about improving what the long-term players want through planning rather than tactical story-game technique used in play.

Quote from: Benoist;427632That's what should happen.

Well sure, it's what happened when we tired of our old WoD GM forcing us into his little plot-point campaigns by forcing our characters into stupid situations.

The problem is, this seems to be a recurring issue for a lot of GMs I've played under.  I don't know whether to blame White-Wolf or the old Living Greyhawk modules, but I'll be damned if a lot of GM's just don't know how to improvise and go with the flow.

Quote from: Peregrin;427656The problem is, this seems to be a recurring issue for a lot of GMs I've played under.

Sure. When all GMs learn is how to run scripted stories and there is a complete void of relevant advice on how to actually run competent games, GMs who do not know how to deal with creative PCs in other ways but to say "no" and be dicks about it and wrecking the whole fucking game desperately to get the PCs back on track is what you get.

Quote from: John Morrow;427642...
The problem is that you are taking all of the hammers out of the toolbox for everyone's protection and I'm left hammering nails with a screwdriver or wrench when all I really need is a hammer.
...

Perfect analogy!

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;427615Assuming we're talking about how the actual data was used, and not some model or theory, then the cluster method would basically amount to creating a scatter diagram in n-dimensional space and then looking for bunches of dots that cluster together. This is hard to imagine visually if n > 3, of course, but it can be done numerically and, furthermore, you may be fortunate enough to identify a small subset of variables that govern the major breakdown of clusters.

The value is largely in identifying the "lumpiness" of the data and developing imputed "groups". If Strategic-Tactical is really a value scale, i.e., measuring your relative interest in Strategic vs. Tactical--and if the same's true of Story vs. Combat--then the data (allegedly) say that there's a cohesive group of people who are into tactical combat, and not so many people who are into tactics but equally interested in combat & story. The same (allegedly) is true for the centers of each of three other quadrants, and then finally a group whose interests are balanced along both axes.

Allegedly, someone might be equally interested in combat & story. But these people tend also to be equally interested in strategic & tactical focus. The "clusters" are imputed identities, basically shorthands for a set of correlations. By definition, you can't be part of more than one cluster, if the clusters were observed as such. Whereas, if there wasn't any pattern to people's interests, there wouldn't be any observable clusters. Or if there was basically a normal distribution of interests on each axis, but no correlation between them, then you'd just have a single cluster in the middle of the graph.

So, what about this...

IIUC, clustering is basically a matter of grouping like with like and separating dissimilar things. Within a cluster two individuals are more likely to be homogenous and less likely to be heterogenous than across clusters - as measured by your distance measure, which is a linear mathematical number based on incorporating differences in several variables between the individuals.

It seems to me that in a cluster analysis study of individuals based on survey responses particular variables might not be reflected in clustering for a number of reasons including:-

1) no Qs in the survey (e.g. no questions about face-to-face social interaction), or Qs inadequately put so answers do not reflect underlying reality
2) answers are effectively constant across the study population (e.g. "yes" - everyone likes face-to-face social interaction), which is really just a subset of (3) below, with the aspect of variability reduced to 0
3) answers are variable across the study population, but totally unrelated to other variations across the study population, specifically the main points of difference which end up being critical to cluster-formation (e.g. people like face-to-face social interaction to differing degrees, but that is unrelated to anything else in the survey, such as whether they like tactics/strategy or combat/story)

Now, we have Dancey earlier on in this thread suggesting in effect

A) people talk about face-to-face interaction until they're blue in the face, but in the WotC survey, it didn't cluster
B) power gamers and character actors will leave the hobby because (i) MMORPGs can do some things they like mechanically to a level TTRPGs cannot and (ii) their behaviour does not actually reflect a strong preference for face-to-face interaction

It seems to me that (B) can in no sense be said to follow from (A).

The fact that face-to-face social interaction didn't cluster surely only means that the variations in preference for face-to-face social interaction were unrelated to the main points of difference/similarity.

In other words, it means that power gamers, thinkers, storytellers, character actors and general roleplayers were all identified (correctly or incorrectly) as having similar levels of preference for face-to-face social interaction (or - any differences between individuals were the same for each group), or the differences of sociability between groups were not important at the level of cluster-analysis, or the question wasn't asked.

But that preference for face-to-face social interaction could still be the most fundamental reason why all or any of them play TTRPGs.

For instance, the single most fundamental cause of homelessness may be the legal, economic, social and political structures of capitalism. But in a study looking at cluster analysis of homelessness in cities in the USA, capitalism simply won't cluster - because it is a constant factor present in all of them. That doesn't mean that capitalism isn't fundamental to homelessness. It just means you can't differentiate on that basis.

So, face-to-face social interaction could still be fundamental to why people play RPGs. Or to put it another way:-

*People* *Snacks* *Setting* *System*

Personally I don't think you can rigidly heirarchise people's preferences in that way, but anyway.

The point is that face-to-face social interaction may be a very strong pull on people of all 5 types WotC identified. At best, the lack of clustering around that point may tell us that Power Gamers are as likely to like face-to-face social interaction as Storytellers. At worst, it is meaningless.

I would hypothesise:-

1) Storytellers particularly like face-to-face interaction because they like enjoying the Storyteller stuff as a group - seeing people's reactions to the themes of the story, letting people see theirs, etc.
2) Character Actors particularly like face-to-face interaction because facial and vocal cues and feedback can be critical to immersing yourself in your character's perspective
3) Power Gamers particularly like face-to-face interaction so their mates can see them kick butt
4) Thinkers particularly like face-to-face interaction so their mates can see what a bunch of smartarse cleverdicks they are (not to mention munchkins)

What if the preference for face-to-face social interaction DURING GAMING is no greater among TTRPGers than among MMOers and it doesn't cluster in that sense as between TTRPGers and MMOers? Even if that's the case, you've got to consider that preference in comparison with other preferences which will vary between the two groups. MMOers might have very strong preferences for things which can only be satisfied via a computer medium without so much face-to-face social interaction and may make sacrifices to get there. TTRPGers may have weaker preferences in those areas, so that by comparison their preference for face-to-face interaction (which is only the same as MMOers on an absolute scale) has a greater effect on their behaviour.

So, I simply don't accept that you can discount face-to-face social interaction from the MMO v TTRPG equation.

What's more, the notion that Character Actors get more out of MMOs than out of TTRPGs strikes me as utterly fatuous.

Quote from: John Morrow;427630I think such people need to explain how it "ruins" the battle.  If the GM knows how the battle is going to turn out, they can write it up and send me the story while I go find an actual role-playing game to play in.

The people in my group, many of whom also GM, have had great fun playing through what amounted to shooting fish in a barrel, either because a plan worked out or because of luck.  

From the New Yorker article about Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto that I posted a link to earlier:

I read that article and I agree with it.

Here's something I remember that very few people seem to remember quite the same:

In AD&D it wasn't *always* life and death, in fact it was somewhat common to go back and "clean up" dungeon sections with a party that was a bit higher than the level required. In fact once you got past 3rd level or so, you had so many retainers that you were very rarely on the line with your own character*.

Frequently, it wasn't about life or death for your own character. So the supposed old school concerns about being mundane scavengers and scroungers doin' it the hard way in a world where life is always on the line .. really rings false for me. Your life was on the line in the first adventure. And then you took the survivors of the three PCs you and your friends each ran and stacked up the remaining gold and hired as many light footmen as you could and a sergeant to lead them. The first game was gambling, but the second and beyond were about resource management.

* I also don't exactly buy the Tavis suggestion that players do (or should?) care about their hirelings. Maybe the henchmen - those cost more money to recruit and usually even had names, but hirelings were frequently marched directly into danger, sent to probe ahead for traps, committed to suicidal battles as delaying actions.. I think I learned the term "cannon fodder" from the DMG (possibly a Dragon article) and we all thought it was hilarious. I used to have a running gag of the hirelings that desert the PCs after being mistreated showing back up in the employ of a rival adventure and trying to encourage loyal hirelings that the HR benefits were better.

A quick note of thanks to Omifray & Elliot for their explanations of cluster analysis. Very useful (and interesting) stuff. Thanks guys

Quote from: Benoist;427660Sure. When all GMs learn is how to run scripted stories and there is a complete void of relevant advice on how to actually run competent games, GMs who do not know how to deal with creative PCs in other ways but to say "no" and be dicks about it and wrecking the whole fucking game desperately to get the PCs back on track is what you get.

Hence my advocating that the industry should be focused on it teaching gamers to be better referees and give them good tools to be good referees beyond the design of the rules themselves.

Trying to relegate all this to rules is a cop out. These issues can't be resolved by rules. They only be resolved by having experienced referee teach folks their techniques.

In addition before doing this experienced referees need to think long and hard about why they do the things they do to avoid the trap of thinking their way is THE way.

As much as I written on Sandbox gaming and my Majestic Wilderlands I don't think they are THE way of gaming. They possibly may be the good way if you are concerned with the same issues as I am. By laying why I do the things I do another referee and say, "Yup that something I can use" or "Nope not applicable to the type of campaigns I run."

The main things that bothers me about Dancey's post is that they don't relate to anything he done in his campaign. Has R. Dancey refereed some games with these techniques? How did they work? What were the circumstances?

I wrote the my "How to make a Fantasy Sandbox" after I analyzed how I wrote nine different setting for Points of Light I, II, and the Wild North.  I am eating my own dogfood by using my Majestic Wilderlands in two S&W campaigns. (a monthly and a weekly) (Majestic Wilderlands was run mostly using GURPS prior to the S&W campaigns).

I would be a lot less critical if I seen people reporting use Say Yes or Roll in a D&D campaign involving dungeon crawls, and other types of adventures.