Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6673527" data-attributes="member: 42582">It seems to me that there are a few things going on here. Some of what I am about to say I think might be a rehash of some of [MENTION=1207]Ristamar[/MENTION]'s points, but I'll have a go anyway in my own words.First, to me there is one important difference between the "open door" roll and the knowledge check. The "open door" roll is not, typically, determining backstory. Rather, it is determining an ingame causal process: does the character hit the door hard enough to open it?Most combat rolls are like this too.But the knowledge check is determining backstory, namely, "Does my PC know this fact?" The earliest example I can think of like this, in D&D, is the theif's Read Languages skill. As Gygax explains on p 20 of his DMG,This ability assumes that the longuage is, in fact, one which the thief has encountered sometime in the past. Ancient and strange languages (those you, as DM, have previously designated as such) are always totally unreadable.In other words, the Read Languages roll isn't adjudicating the results of something the thief is attempting in the fiction; rather, it's randomly determining a question of backstory (is the thief familiar with this particular fragment of this particular language, or not?).Some rolls that are typically treated as adjudicating in-fiction attempts could, in fact, be interpreted as randomly determining backstory: for instance, a roll to hit could be interpreted as "Has my character been trained in the fencing moves that will counter this guy's manoeuvres?", and a roll to pick locks could be interpreted as "Is my character familiar with this sort of mechanical lock design?" - but in my experience to hit rolls and pick lock rolls are not normally interpreted in such a fashion. They are interpreted as determining how quick, strong, agile etc the character was in applying his/her physicality to the situation at hand.I think the reason for rolling to determine the outcome of an application of physicality to the situation at hand are fairly well-recognised: it avoids railroading, produces surprise etc.What are the reasons, though, for rolling randomly to determine a PC's backstory? In the case of rolling for starting money, a reason can be fairness combined with verisimilitude: everyone has the chance to be the richest, but not everyone is equally rich. In the case of rolling for handedness, in systems which care about facing, shield vs weapon hand, etc, again it can be fairness combined with verisimilitude. In the case of 4e monster knowledge, the roll means that the players have a chance but not a guarantee of getting the monster stats - so its a type of rationing device.In the case of the religious symbol, I don't see any issue of fairness or verisimilitude. But I don't see any reason for rationing either.The reason that you (delericho) give is that we want to randomly determine whether the PCs go on adventure A ("talk to the sage") or adventure B ("track down the cult"). I guess I don't understand why this is randomly determined. Most of the time a GM wouldn't randomly determine which module to buy - s/he would choose one that looks fun.I can see that the outcome is "relevant to the story" in at least two senses: (1) the PC backstory is different depending on whether the roll dictates knowledge or ignorance, and (2) the events the PCs undertake following the roll might be different depending on whether the roll dictates knowledge or ignorance.But (2) would be true even if the roll wasn't made. As you have posted:That is, this isn't an encounter - it's not a resolution of action declarations by the players for their PCs. If the players know the backstory about the holy symbol, they have choices to make (ie (2) is true). If the players don't know the backstory about the holy symbol, they have choices to make (ie (2) is true). Which is to say, (2) is true independent of (1).Hence, the desirability of the players having choices to make, and thereby affecting the content of the shared fiction, has no bearing on whether or not we should roll to determine whether or not the PC backstory includes knowing the religious symbol backstory.And I'm still unclear what the benefit is of rolling randomly to determine what challenge confronts the PCs, rather than the GM just stipulating - as s/he does in so many other cases (eg when s/he buys a module by choice rather than by random selection).Having the PCs fail because the players make silly choices is one thing. Having the PCs fail because the players get unlucky in action resolution is another thing. (Gygax recognised the difference between these two things when he said that, if a skilled player's PC is killed in combat, the GM might instead adjudicate it as unconsciousness or maiming: DMG p 110.) Having the PCs fail because the GM doesn't give the access to the backstory they need to succeed is yet another thing.The difference between silly choices and access to backstory isn't always clear. For instance, if the party includes a high level cleric then maybe the players should be using a Commune spell to get access to the backstory that they need. Similarly, one way to get information is by talking to/interrogating NPCs, and that typically involves action resolution.But I don't see how this generates a reason to make the Religion roll. If the GM wants the players to engage in action resolution in order to get the backstory, then the ability/skill roll is counterproductive because it might thwart that. If the GM thinks that action resolution in order to get the backstory is tedious or a timewaster, then the roll is counterproductive too. And if the GM can't make up his/her mind whether having to actually engage in action resolution to get the backstory is worthwhile, then we're back to choosing the challenge via random selection, and I still don't see how or why that's a good thing.If the players don't know the stakes, then the roll doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than titillation for the GM.To give a caricatured example: suppose at the start of the campaign the GM asks the players to roll a d6, and the GM has mentally noted that, on a 1-3 s/he will start the campaign in FR,  on a 4-6 in Greyhawk. That's a roll that would have consequences for the content of the shared fiction, but I don't think that shows the GM was being sensible in calling for such a roll. How does it add to the game? If the GM can't make up his/her mind, and isn't going to ask the players, why not flip a coin?Back to the holy symbol case, if the GM doesn't know whether it would be more fun to run a "visit the sage" adventure or a "track down the cult" adventure, why not just flip a coin? How is it better to make the players roll? And why should the outcome of the coin toss depend on whether or not one of the players has built a PC with a high religion skill bonus?Apart from anything else, if the players have built PCs with low religion skill bonuses then, on the approach of checking religion they are more likely to end up having to visit the sage, but at least in my experience the sorts of players who enjoy having their PCs visit sages are more likely to build their PCs with high religion skill bonuses.There is another reason that knowing the stakes, or not, matters, which comes up in response to the following:The first two of these three quotes seem to be making an assumption which is exactly what is being questioned - namely, they seem to assume that rolling Religion is the way to adjudicate the PCs examining a clue.I take it for granted that PCs who find a holy symbol at the scene of the crime will examine it. But that doesn't necessarily mean a Religion check is to be rolled. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], in this thread, has already emphasised that within the 5e framework whether an action declaration (such as "we examine the symbol to see if we recognise it") is resolved via a die roll or via GM stipulation of the outcome is something subject to GM discretion. The same is true in many other systems too (eg those that use "say yes or roll the dice; or the example of reading languages in AD&D, that I quoted from Gygax's DMG above, where the GM is entitled to say no with no die roll).As to the framing suggested by me in the third quote, no one is saying that because the cleric doesn't recognise the symbol the PCs have to confront a sage. I am assuming that the players would agree to those stakes. The point is that, if I as GM have decided that the backstory is not going to be automatically available, then I want the players to confront that - what are they prepared to do to acquire the information? If the players don't want to stake a visit to the sage, they are free to nominate something else - eg they visit their unsavoury contacts in the world of dark cults. The point is that if they're not ready to commit to something, then they don't get to make the roll!To put it another way: if I'm not going to force the players to make some sort of commitment, to stake something, in order to get the information, then why as GM am I not just giving it to them?This also helps show why it is useful for the players to know the stakes: it leds them decide how much they care, and hence how much they should invest in the roll. Eg if the players really don't want to have to visit the sage (eg they know the sage will chastise them, or charge them) they can devote resources to the religion test (eg go to the local monastery's library in order to get a circumstance advantage, or summon an angel in order to get a helping advantage, or whatever).When the players are making rolls that only the GM knows the consequences of, the players don't know what they are staking, hence don't know what the worth is of succeeding at the roll, hence don't know what degree of resources they should commit. The game becomes closer to a lottery, and often also to a railroad shaped more by the GM's choices than the players'.</blockquote>

Verification