What is the point of GM's notes?

[Maxperson]

Seriously? Yeesh. I'm looking at the idol of the reptile god, with it's strip of glowing runes and a countdown to Armageddon. So I ask the DM to roll lore to see what I might know about the cult or those runes that might help be defuse or bypass them. I roll a 17, and the DM says... you get the picture. What you're looking for isn't in the rule at all, but in practice at the table. Something I think you know full well. Sure, sometime people might roll lore for goofy stuff, but that isn't what we're talking about.

I'm not sure why you think that counters anything that I said. I said more than once that lore rolls often give results that aren't helpful, not that they never do. They are often helpful. And often not.

 

[Maxperson]

So the reason that D&D Lore mechanics are different from BitD Flashback mechanics is because a successful Lore check might be pointless, whereas a successful Flashback action is normally meaningful.

I love it. I've been saying this for umpteen posts now and @Fenris-77 has been arguing against it. You come in and say it once and he hits it with a like.

 

[Maxperson]

The Flashback might be pointless too, you still have to make a skill roll. I would happily agree that flashback mechanics of any sort have no place in traditional D&D/OSR skilled play thought, for sure. They run very counter to the basic goals of play.

Failing a roll doesn't make it pointless. It just makes it a failure.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not sure why you think that counters anything that I said. I said more than once that lore rolls often give results that aren't helpful, not that they never do. They are often helpful. And often not.

I'm talking about Lore rolls when it matters, like as in it's a really big swinging deal whether we know this right now or not. That's what I'm getting at. This is D&D we're talking about, so of course that skill gets rolled for all kinds of nonsense and minor shizz. If we confine ourselves to the example I'm actually using perhaps we'll get further, although I am enjoying this extended round of roshambo.

 

[Fenris-77]

I love it. I've been saying this for umpteen posts now and @Fenris-77 has been arguing against it. You come in and say it once and he hits it with a like.

You are really missing the point if that's what you think. See my post above.

 

[Fenris-77]

Let me use allcaps here just to make things clear. LORE ROLLS WHEN SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY AT STAKE. There, not shouting, just for emphasis.

 

[Maxperson]

I have GMed games with lore checks a lot: mostly RM and 4e D&D, also some RQ, and it comes up a bit (in the form of EDU checks, mostly) in our Classic Traveller game.

The PCs encounter a ghost/haunting spirit of some kind; a lore check is made; it succeeds; it is now established that one of the PCs knows that the ghost/spirit is immune to Xs but vulnerable to Ys. All the PCs put their Xs away and pull their Ys out of their backpacks.

That is "going back in time" - or, more exactly, establishing some details about a prior moment of learning for a PC - which then changes the event that takes place in the present (ingame) moment, namely, the way the PCs are equipping themselves to tackle the threat that confronts them.

Upthread I quoted Gygax in relation to this very point, when he discusses the thief's Read Languages ability. This is exactly what that ability is: a successful check establishes that, in the past, the thief undertook an action of learning a foreign script which now changes what is taking place - ie the thief can, rather than can't, decipher the markings s/he has just encountered.

You aren't actually going back to that moment, though. Not the way you do with a flashback. Nor are you changing the event by pulling a rabbit out of your hat that just happens to be what you need and calling it prep that you did before you arrived. You either have what you need on you or prepared, or you don't.

 

[Maxperson]

Let me use allcaps here just to make things clear. LORE ROLLS WHEN SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY AT STAKE. There, not shouting, just for emphasis.

Not by RAW. All there has to be is a meaningful consequence for failure, such as not knowing what X does or means and an outcome that is in doubt. Even if the party doesn't have what it needs on it, it could leave and come back better prepared. Having new(to the player) knowledge is itself a meaningful goal and a worthy reason to roll.

 

[Campbell]

We have now established that @Maxperson, @Lanefan and @Emirikol personally dislike flashbacks. No one says the have to like them or use them. Can you at least contemplate that some of us can get use out of them as a means to feel more connected to our characters? That what pulls you out and makes you feel disconnected can also make me feel more connected? Acknowledge that different techniques can work for different people even if they share pretty similar objectives?

 

[Fenris-77]

OK, this has been fun, but I think Roshambo time is over. Three pages later and the same things are on the table. I'm moving on.

@Campbell - are you talking to me there? I'm not sure.